Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Bentley John Heddle Esquire, the Member for Mid-Staffordshire, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BARLOW CL OWES

Return ordered,
of the Government's observations on the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on Barlow Clowes.—[Mr. Forth.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Schools (Safety)

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on his policy to ensure that safety in schools is maintained.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My right hon. Friend's policy is to assist local education authorities and governing bodies in meeting their legal responsibilities for reasonably ensuring safety in schools by providing advice and guidance and maintaining oversight of matters of particular interest and importance.

Mr. Livsey: On my birthday, 2 May, the Under-Secretary of State promised my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that further action would be taken about the risks in schools for the safety of children, especially the general state of disrepair into which many schools have fallen and the fire risk. Last year, there were 25 school fires costing £250,000 each. What has the Minister done to provide further resources and what plans does she have to provide for the greater safety of our school children?

Mrs. Rumbold: First, all local authorities and governing bodies have a responsibility under the Health and Safety at Work Etc. Act 1974 and the fire safety regulations to ensure that school buildings are safe. The hon. Gentleman will know from the Autumn Statement that annual capital guidelines of £485 million of expenditure have been announced, together with a percentage of capital receipts which will be available to local authorities for expenditure

on repairs, maintenance and desirable improvements of schools. That is additional money and rather better than the figure of £352 million for capital expenditure in this current year.

Dr. Glyn: Is my hon. Friend aware of the excellent work done by St. John Ambulance which teaches first aid in schools? Will she ensure that a first aid course is compulsory in all schools?

Mrs. Rumbold: I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. I am well aware of the importance of the work of the St. John Ambulance brigade. We are looking at the guidance on first aid issued to schools and hope that it will be sufficient. If necessary, we shall strengthen it.

Ms. Armstrong: How can the Minister be content with the safety of staff and children in schools when she and her hon. Friends are presiding over a backlog of £3 billion worth of repairs?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Lady should be careful how she uses figures. The £3 billion to which she referred was for desirable repairs, £1 billion of which were postulated in a buildings report three years ago. Inevitably, some of those repairs must have been made as local authorities have had £1·6 billion available to spend over the past three years.

City Technology Colleges

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will establish a city technology college in the north-west London area.

Mrs. Rumbold: A number of sponsors have expressed an interest in sponsoring a CTC in the London area. We are willing to consider any proposal that meets the programme's criteria and has the support of industry.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In view of the suggestion that such an institution might be established in the Brent Cross area and the excellent potential of such new institutions, what does my hon. Friend think the effects would be on neighbouring boroughs, including my constituency?

Mrs. Rumbold: The criteria for drawing up the catchment areas for CTCs are decided as and when CTCs are established. My hon. Friend is right to say that they are an extremely valuable addition to our complement of educational buildings and schools.

Mr. Flannery: May I express the hope that no CTC will be established in north-west London? If it is established, can that be done with money from private industry, as we were promised, instead of siphoning off Government money, as happened in Nottingham, where upwards of £8 million was taken for one school and 500 others will be deprived?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman should talk to parents in Nottingham who are clearly voting with their feet in support of the city technology college. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's hope that there will be no CTC in north London.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend accept the suggestion that there should be a city technology college on the Whitefield school site in north-west London, as it


has been warmly welcomed by the governing body of the school, and it will be warmly welcomed by parents in the surrounding area?

Mrs. Rumbold: If we had sufficient support from industry—that is, 20 per cent. or more—and if the section 12 notices relating to such a proposal came forward, the Government would be happy to consider the proposal favourably.

Mr. George: Perhaps I can help the Minister. If she wants to establish a CTC, she can give away the one that is about to be established in my constituency. Why, when the local authority is trying to close two or three secondary schools in the area, is there a requirement—by that well-known education authority, the Black Country development corporation—to establish a further school?

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman is confusing the difficulties that some local authorities have in persuading parents to accept the schools that they support in the maintained sector, and the new thoughts that come to parents when they consider CTCs and what they provide. The excellence of those schools is demonstrated by the number of parents supporting them and the number of teachers who wish to teach in them. It is clearly the will of the people to have new choices, and to support different types of school within the maintained sector.

School Days

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what information he has as to the length of the school day and year in 1989 and 1959.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): Under the Education (Schools and Further Education) Regulations 1981, as amended, schools—nursery schools and classes excepted—must meet for 380 half-day sessions in a school year and provide at least three hours of secular instruction for pupils under eight years and at least four hours for pupils of or above that age. The equivalent provisions in 1959 contained no significant differences.

Mr. Bennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that 25 to 30 years ago the average school teaching day finished at about 4 o'clock? In most secondary schools now the day ends at about 3 o'clock—an hour earlier than 30 years ago. As many schools claim that they do not have time to teach the national curriculum and optional subjects, is there not a case for the secondary schools' teaching day to be extended?

Mr. Howarth: We all sometimes feel the temptation to be nostalgic. I doubt whether my hon. Friend means to contend that in general teachers work less hard than they did in what was, no doubt, the golden age when he was a teacher. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in paying tribute to the hard work and professionalism of teachers today. However, he has made an important point. The performance of schools as they organise themselves to teach the national curriculum will depend on management policy. The disparity in the number of hours of teaching offered to children from one school to another is striking. In that context, last May we put out a draft circular for

consultation, inviting governors and head teachers to review the balance of time spent on teaching and other activities.

Mr. Madel: Does my hon. Friend think that the present school day should be extended so that those young people who find it difficult and unsettling to do their homework at home would have the option of doing this work at school?

Mr. Howarth: The organisation of the school day and the duties undertaken by teachers in directed time are matters for the head teacher to decide. Most schools organise themselves to deliver the national curriculum successfully, but some find it more difficult. Some schools offer up to three hours more teaching per week, with the same length of school day. Head teachers are anxious to be flexible, imaginative and sensitive to the needs of their pupils, but it is at their discretion.

Research Students

Mr. James Lamond: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is the annual postgraduate award for research students living away from home outside London paid by the research councils; and by how much it has changed in real terms since 1979.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): The basic postgraduate grant paid by the research councils in 1989–90 is £3,725 a year. That is 1·5 per cent. more in real terms than the equivalent grant paid by the research councils in the 1979–80 academic year.

Mr. Lamond: Would it not be sensible for research councils to be given more funds, despite the welcome increase that the Minister has just described, so that they can at least get somewhere near to competing against the money available in the City and commerce, to which young people are drawn, as we might want some of them to go into research? This is quite different from a student grant, as I am sure the Minister appreciates. In view of the costs incurred by research students, £3,725 will not encourage them to take up research.

Mr. Jackson: I should tell my hon. Friend—I think of the hon. Gentleman as my hon. Friend since we travelled round the Soviet Union together in a large black limousine—that the number of studentships awarded by research councils has increased by 11 per cent. during the past 10 years. The level of research grant is for the research councils to settle, but they are recruiting increased numbers at the present grant.

Mr. Key: Although the Medical Research Council, of which I have the honour to be a member, is grateful that the payment has been increased by £600 in the current financial year, there is a real problem of recruitment, competing against the private sector at a time of demographic contraction. Will my hon. Friend consider carefully the implications of that for the quality and the number of students who go into research?

Mr. Jackson: It is difficult to measure what one means by quality in this context. About one third of those who go on to postgraduate study have first-class degrees. That proportion has been more or less the same throughout the research councils for many years.

Dr. Bray: Will the Minister acknowledge that £3,725 is simply not a living rate and is a major disincentive which is having a drastic effect on quality? The proportion of first-class degrees is not a sufficient measure. I invite him to visit some leading research teams, such as that at the laboratory of molecular biology at Cambridge, to hear what they have to say. Is he aware that the Imperial Cancer Research Fund offers studentship grants of £7,269 and that the Wellcome Trust offers the same? It is utterly intolerable that the Medical Research Council and others should be unable to follow suit.

Mr. Jackson: The amount that we are paying is 1·5 per cent. more than was paid by the Government in which the hon. Member served 10 years ago. I visit many institutions and I am not aware that there is a problem with recruitment or quality. I think that the proportion of first-class degrees is a reasonable guide.

Mr. Conway: Is my hon. Friend aware of awards such as those made by organisations such as the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases? Should we not recognise the work that is done at the taxpayer's expense and welcome the tremendous contribution of many national charities which fund a great deal of medical research out of charitable donations?

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The charities make an enormous contribution, especially to medical research. That shows what can be done. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) referred to research assistantships, many of which are paid for by charities. Most of them are post-doctoral. Their number has increased four times during the past 10 years. Many are funded by the private sector and charities, and many more are funded by the Government.

Research and Development

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates he has for higher education research and development expenditure as a percentage of gross domestic product in the United Kingdom and in France, Germany, Japan and the United States of America, respectively.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John MacGregor): Definitions of the higher education sector as reported to the OECD vary substantially, so any figures must be treated with caution. Published OECD figures for 1986 are 0·33 per cent. for the United Kingdom, 0·34 per cent. for France, 0·37 per cent. for Germany, 0·56 per cent. for Japan and 0·40 per cent. for the United States. But these are inputs, and this Government are concerned with outputs. As measured by our share of scientific papers published, the United Kingdom's research output remains second only to that of the United States.

Mr. Boyes: Is it true that we spend only half as much as Japan on our education research and development as a percentage of gross domestic product? How can the Secretary of State expect the United Kingdom to compete in a highly technological world when we spend less on research than do other major OECD countries? Is that not particularly important to constituencies in the north-east, where we try to create and attract new technological

industries to replace our previous traditional base of steel, coal and merchant shipbuilding, which have all been destroyed by this Government?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman's latter point has nothing to do with the question. He asked me about specific countries, but I should tell him that we spend more on research and development than many other countries. Even more important, the comparable figures for OECD countries are for 1986 and are out of date. Since 1986 we have increased our science budget in real terms by 17 per cent., which is bound to be reflected in the comparisons. In the last two public expenditure surveys, we have increased the cash amount by £490 million—a significant increase.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Has my right hon. Friend comparable figures for the provision of funds for higher education research and development by private industry and commerce? Is there not a case for trying to attract more funds from those sources so that we can have better research and development in the future?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not have the figures to hand, but they would show that, over the years, we have contributed less through those sources than some other countries. I am glad that, in the 1980s, universities and colleges have successfully attracted more funding from industry, as my hon. Friend recommended. I entirely agree with his objective, and our position is improving.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that in addition to our relatively poor performance during the five years from 1986–87 to 1991–92, as evidenced by the answers that he has just given, there will be a fall in expenditure on research and development in real terms by 10 per cent.? According to Government figures, expenditure will fall from £4·8 million to £4·3 million. Is not the reality that, according to the Government's figures, they have not only cut their commitment to research and development, but grossly underfunded our science base?

Mr. MacGregor: I have just told the House that our expenditure on the science budget since 1986–87 is substantially up in real terms. One can only guess as to the exact amount spent on research and development as a whole in universities. The Universities Funding Council said that this year we would spend about £780 million more on research and development. There has been a considerable increase in the amount spent.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will my right hon. Friend cast his eyes beyond solely expenditure on research, and say how we fare on the success and results of research, particularly in comparison with western Europe and the United States?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. In citations and published output we continue to perform extremely well. As I said, we are second only to the United States in terms of scientific papers in main journals. It is interesting that in the 1980s we have maintained our porportion of world output, whereas Germany and France, despite an increased scientific budget, have reduced their output.

Primary Schools (Computers)

Dr. Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that the supply of computers in primary schools will meet the demand of the national curriculum.

Mr. Alan Howarth: Local education authorities are responsible for ensuring that schools have enough microcomputers to meet the requirements of the national curriculum. Under our education support grants programme, £25 million is being set aside over a three-year period beginning last year to assist LEAs to purchase microcomputers for educational use in schools. For 1990–91, the Department has asked the authorities to give particular attention to the needs of primary schools.

Dr. Reid: The Minister must be aware that the National Curriculum Council states that our schoolchildren should be able to use computers as early as possible. However, Her Majesty's inspectorate of schools has discovered that more than one third of schools' computer hardware and software is inadequate. Why are Britain's children being sold short? How long will we have to wait until our children receive exactly the same technical back-up of hardware and computer software as our foreign competitors to allow them to develop their skills and contribute towards the nation's future technological health?

Mr. Howarth: Under the national curriculum, we require that every child in key stage one, which is the first three years of primary education, should have hands-on experience of computers. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that he is quite in error and that Britain leads the world in information technology in schools. We have more microcomputers, more teachers trained in their appropriate use, and a more extensive presence of information technology across the curriculum than any other country. That places us in a very strong position for the future.

Mr. Baldry: Will my hon. Friend confirm that whether it be teachers, textbooks or computers, since 1979 spending per pupil in primary schools has increased by 35 per cent. and in secondary schools by 40 per cent? Is it not a fact that the Conservative party continues to strengthen our state schools?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Sound economic policies must be the basis on which to generate the resources that we all want for education. Only this Conservative Government can deliver those sound policies. My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that the programme to equip primary schools with computers has been proceeding very well. There are now, on average, three microcomputers in each primary school.

Mr. Cryer: Does the Minister realise that primary school teachers in Bradford have difficulty using computers because there are so many leaking roofs that they fear for the electricity supply in the damp conditions? Will the Minister ensure that, as a requisite for teaching computing or any other subject, Bradford receives a sufficient allocation to ensure that its schools have decent premises and permanent extensions rather than having to manage, as they have for many years, with temporary classrooms, some of which need replacing with further temporary classrooms because they are worn out? I am thinking especially about Buttershaw first school in my constituency.

Mr. Howarth: The capital allocation needs of Bradford have been objectively and fairly considered on the same basis as every other authority, and that will continue. We

support the introduction and development of information technology in schools through specific grants, which are a separate source of funding.
About £25 million is being set aside under education support grant for the purchase of microcomputers, with an additional £30 million for the employment of advisory teachers to help classroom teachers get to grips with information technology. Under the local education authority training grant scheme, £16 million is being set aside for training teachers in the use of information technology in schools. Bradford's bid for a share of those funds will again be fairly considered, as will bids from any other authority.

Curriculum

Mr. Forman: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to devise a coherent curriculum for 16 to 18-year-olds.

Mr. MacGregor: The most recent step is that I wrote to the School Examinations and Assessment Council on 28 November, asking it to develop proposals to enable young people to switch more easily between academic and vocational courses. I have also asked SEAC and the National Curriculum Council to work with other appropriate bodies on the incorporation within advanced-level courses of knowledge, skills and understanding relevant to working life.

Mr. Forman: I welcome that constructive step in Government education policy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an overriding need to raise the lamentably low staying-on rate for 16 to 18-year-olds? Does he further agree that we could well examine the international baccalaureate and the modular approach to courses? Would that not make it more attractive to pupils of all ranges of ability to stay on at school?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree that more young people should stay on at school. However, the rate has been improving in recent years and about 42 per cent. of young people aged 16 and 17 are now staying on in full-time education. A further considerable number are staying on part time. But we are still not doing as well as our major overseas competitors, and I am anxious for an improvement. I am glad to say that the GCSE is already being shown to motivate more 16-year-olds to stay on at school. My hon. Friend raises in his second point a number of bodies which are developing vocational courses, and I have asked SEAC to consider whether we have the right mix.

Dr. Thomas: The Secretary of State will recollect that he shares responsibility for the work of SEAC with the Secretary of State for Wales. Is he satisfied with the co-ordination with the Welsh Office on this issue, and is the Welsh dimension of SEAC's work being sufficiently addressed by the council?

Mr. MacGregor: Yes, I am satisfied about that. I work closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I know that SEAC pays particular attention to Welsh interests.

Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the A-level is an increasingly lonely examination—an all-or-nothing one-day pass or fail exercise—and will he


compare it with the approach that is now being given to the GCSE to see whether more continuous assessment could be introduced?

Mr. MacGregor: No, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's first point. It is important to maintain the strengths and excellence of A-levels, and that is what we aim to do. But, given the numbers of extra young people now staying on after the age of 16 as a result of the GCSE, there will be some for whom the academic rigours of the A-level will not be appropriate as they stay on. That is why I have asked SEAC to look at the possibility of developing what technically are called credit transfers—to enable people, once they are in the A-level stream, to switch to vocational courses, if to do so suits them better.

Mr. Fatchett: The Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) suggests that there is need to reform the A-level. When industry, through the CBI, and higher education, through the university vice-chancellors and polytechnic directors are asking for the reform of the A-level, and when the Government's own committee chaired by the vice-chancellor of Southampton, Professor Higginson, has asked for the reform of the A-level, is it not about time that the Government got the message and recognised that a broader examination at the age of 18 is the key to a broad curriculum between the ages of 16 and 18?

Mr. MacGregor: My answer to my hon. Friend did not imply what the hon. Gentleman suggests. It is important in this context to broaden the range of subjects that young people take when they move into the A-level stream. We are developing the AS-level to give that broader range. It has started comparatively well. It always takes time for an innovation to settle down. There are some problems that I have asked the advisory bodies to consider, but it has started well, and in my view that is the right course to pursue.

City Technology Colleges

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the programme of development for city technology colleges.

Mr. MacGregor: The CTC programme continues to make excellent progress. Three CTCs are now open and at least a further eight colleges will open in 1990 and 1991.

Mr. Dunn: While welcoming the Government's determination to press on with the CTC programme, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is now time positively to encourage local education authorities to run some of their schools along CTC lines?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that the CTC in Dartford is making good progress, and that that is a CTC run exactly along the lines that we planned from the outset. As for his suggested broadening of the type of CTC that might be considered by local education authorities, I believe that that area could be further developed. Our top priority at present is to get completed the 20 to which we are committed as a target. The development of the CTC curriculum is another important area on which we have committed some expenditure. It is important for all local education

authorities to gain from the innovations and changes that CTCs make to ensure that they are spread within the education system as a whole.

Mrs. Mahon: Is not the spending of huge amounts of public money on CTCs getting close to curruption? Is it not time that the Government looked to their responsibility to pay for education for the whole nation, and stopped funding a small, elite group?

Mr. MacGregor: That is the oddest description imaginable of money spent on an innovation that will bring considerable benefits to inner-city areas, assist in the development of technological innovation in education and help industry and education to work together more closely in schools. It is also important for the hon. Lady to see our spending in context. Next year we shall be spending about £28 million on CTCs, and just under £15,000 million on the maintained sector as a whole.

Mr. Pawsey: As one of the only two hon. Members of the House who went to a technical school—the other being my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Bruce)—I well understand, as does my hon. Friend, the benefits of a good technical education. May I urge my right hon. Friend to ignore the carping, moaning and grumbling of Opposition Members, to accelerate the current programme and to develop more CTCs?

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. It is interesting to note that parents who are in potential CTC catchment areas take an entirely different view from that of Opposition Members. The colleges now being developed are clearly oversubscribed.
My hon. Friend asked me to expand the programme. We have a big job ahead in achieving our target of 20 CTCs—there are always difficulties to be overcome in such circumstances, for instance sorting out planning, building sites and staffing, but we are making good progress, and I think that it is right to concentrate on that.

Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State recall that his predecessor said that 20 CTCs would be in operation by the end of this year? As only three are in operation so far, why does the Secretary of State not recognise that the programme is an immoral and wasteful failure? Her Majesty's inspectorate has said that half the children in secondary schools are being educated in sub-standard accommodation. Why does the right hon. Gentleman not immediately cancel this wasteful CTC programme and use the money to repair some of Britain's crumbling schools?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already told the House that the target set by my predecessor turned out in practice to be overambitious, owing to the difficulty of getting the practical realities off the ground. To describe the programme as immoral is, however, ludicrous. The plain fact is that practical problems are always involved in the business of gaining planning permission, finding sites and linking sponsors to those sites. That is what has caused our failure to meet the original timetable, but we are sticking to our target, and it is clear from the response that this has been an excellent innovation.

Mr. Squire: Is my right hon. Friend not appalled by the continuing opposition from so many members of the Labour party to yet another extension of choice? Will he confirm that, far from being elitist, CTCs draw their pupils from the widest range of ability possible?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is right. If the Opposition abandoned their blind prejudice and looked at what is happening in the CTCs, they would obtain a very different view. They would see just how well the colleges are performing in inner-urban areas containing a considerable ethnic mix. I suspect that, just as they have changed their attitude to the closed shop, taxation and so many other matters, Labour Members will gradually come to recognise that we are right, and will cease their opposition to this innovation. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members to listen to these important questions?

Staffing Levels

Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on staffing levels in junior and infant schools.

Mr. Alan Howarth: The ratio of pupils to teachers in primary schools has improved from 23·1:1 in 1979 to 22:1 in 1988. There are now more primary teachers relative to pupils than ever before. This improvement has given local education authorities and schools greater flexibility in the deployment of teacher time. The average class size in primary schools is now 25·9 pupils—down from 26·3 in 1979.

Mr. Archer: That is good stuff, but is the Minister aware that I have received correspondence from the head teachers of many primary and junior schools in my constituency which expresses deep anxiety about the staffing problems and consequent crisis in morale? As his Department introduced the national curriculum, can he assure those head teachers that every school will contain a suitably qualified teacher for each subject in that curriculum?

Mr. Howarth: The Government are very conscious that much is being asked of teachers in our current education reforms and that much is being achieved. The teaching profession deserves recognition, respect and gratitude for its professionalism. The criteria for the accreditation of teacher training courses have been modified, and as a result we shall look forward to every teacher trainee for primary teaching having 100 hours of training in science, in addition to the training already provided in the other core subjects of mathematics and English. Beyond that we are providing grants for in-service training to enable primary teachers to upgrade and update their professional qualifications.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the large increase in resources per primary school pupil over the past 10 years has led to a record pupil-teacher ratio in Britain? Will he confirm the results of a recent national survey on parents' attitudes which show that the majority of them are not worried about resources or staffing in schools and overwhelmingly support the Government's policies for a national curriculum and rigorous assessment of pupils and teachers which have been embodied in the Education Reform Act 1988?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national curriculum has been very widely welcomed by parents and by the teaching profession. It represents a

redefinition of every child's entitlement to an education that will prepare them for the 1990s and it deserves the fullest support of all parties in the House.

Mr. Straw: As the Minister is so confident in the Government's record, will he offer parents a clear and categorical guarantee that no child will be without a properly qualified permanent teacher in his or her classroom in January?
Mr. Howarth: Overall, the supply of primary teachers in Britain is more than enough to meet the requirements. Of course we are well aware that there are problems of shortages and difficulties in retention and recruitment in certain geographical areas—notably London and the south-east. As the hon. Gentleman knows, education authorities are responsible for the employment and deployment of teachers. We are working actively and vigorously to support them. A £50 million programme is in operation to assist authorities to devise the recruitment packages that they need. We shall continue to develop and refine that programme, working in their support.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that when considering resources, particularly in junior and infants' schools, we shall move away from the slavish regard for class sizes and pupil-teacher ratios and consider resources in a much wider way? Sometimes large classes are the right approach and resources should be spread more widely to provide other teaching aids.

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right to say that class sizes are an indicator of limited value. The quality of teaching counts above all. However, our improvement in the pupil-teacher ratio has given authorities and heads more flexibility in the management of their teacher forces and has provided more scope for teachers to undertake in-service training. My hon. Friend is also right that it is important that we continue to make good progress in making available to schools new material and teaching aids. For example, we are working on a programme to make available interactive videos in our schools.

Student Loans

Mr. Janner: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received concerning the Government's proposal to set up a system of top-up loans for students.

Mr. Jackson: Since the publication of the White Paper on top-up loans for students we have received about 4,700 letters, including 63 petitions. Of those, about 350 have been received since publication of the Education (Student Loans) Bill.

Mr. Janner: Does the Minister not understand from the reception that his proposals have received that the system of top-up loans is universally recognised as unfair and unwarranted? Does he accept what students at Leicester polytechnic told me this morning—that combined with the removal of housing and social security benefits during vacations, many students will be left worse off than people on the dole? Should students not have the means to have the peace of mind to study?

Mr. Jackson: Top-up loans will represent a substantial addition to the resources that are available to most students and the hon. and learned Gentleman should


recognise that. We had a substantial majority for the Bill on Second Reading and I am pleased to report that we are making good progress in Committee.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend not consider it wholly misleading for a students' union to write to inform hon. Members that the majority of students are against these proposals? When one looks at the table attached to that communication, one sees that only 6 per cent. are against these proposals and that 94 per cent. did not respond in the survey from Edinburgh students' union.

Mr. Jackson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a great deal of misrepresentation and some degree of genuine misunderstanding. As we make progress with the legislation, our proposals will he better understood and widely welcomed.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Sir Michael Shaw: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with Mr. Shevardnadze, the Soviet Foreign Minister.

Sir Michael Shaw: On this, her last Question Time of the 1980s, will my right hon. Friend reflect on the great progress that has been made during the past 10 years in the well-being of our country and in the new competitive spirit of all our industries? Furthermore, will she reflect on the dramatic and helpful changes that are being made in the rest of the world? Will she look forward and seek to —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.

Sir Michael Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend seek to explain to us the role that she sees for her Government and for this country in the future?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. During this decade, we have created more jobs than ever before in this country, we have higher living standards than ever before, better social services than ever before, a wider spread of ownership than ever before and a higher standard of respect in the world than we have had for many a long year. In the next decade, we look to extend educational opportunity, to increase the training that is available to young people and to take a leading part in the single European market. With our staunch defence and our belief in the market economy, I hope and believe that we shall be able to give extensive help to the countries in eastern Europe that are seeking what we have taken for granted for so long.

Mr. Kinnock: When 600,000 people working in the Health Service are already covered by pay review arrangements, why will the Prime Minister not consider extending a pay review body to the 22,000 ambulance staff?

The Prime Minister: Pay review bodies, as the right hon. Gentleman should recall, are given to those who do not go on strike, such as the nurses.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister knows very well, as she has known for the past 15 weeks, that ambulance staff are not on strike—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kinnock: Why will not the Prime Minister acknowledge the fact that, if she allowed the dispute to go to arbitration, she could bring it to a speedy and enduring resolution, which would ensure that ambulance staffs never went through this experience again? Or is it the case, as millions in this country now believe, that the Prime Minister does not want a resolution to the dispute?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there are some militant ambulance men who want to withdraw the emergency service across the country to force through their pay claim. Moreover, from Friday 15 December, most emergency crews in London have refused to respond to urgent calls through the 999 service and have invited calls direct from the public, with which they cannot deal properly. The right hon. Gentleman knows that quite generous offers have now been made to ambulance men varying from 9 to 16·3 per cent. depending on where they work and on the extent of their medical training. That increase is backdated to 1 April, and there are now arrears waiting for ambulance men to pick them up varying from £653 to £1,290. I hope that they will consider that that is a reasonable offer and that they will wish to return to work, as we should like them to do.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister speaks of ambulance men. Has she not heard that the Association of Professional Ambulance Personnel—the kind of organisation that she likes—has turned down her pay offer by a majority of five to one? Does not the Prime Minister get the message from that? If she does not, I do, millions of people in the country do and members of her own party do. The message is that urging from the Prime Minister will not resolve the dispute; arbitration will.

The Prime Minister: Those particular ambulance men voted on a day when the trade union official of the main ambulance union suggested that there might be another offer on the table. As the right hon. Gentleman knows there has been a final offer. There are many people in this country who think that an offer ranging from 9 to 16·3 per cent. with considerable lump sums waiting to be picked up, is reasonable. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to join me in asking the ambulance men to return to work and, in particular, to have the truce over Christmas that was offered to them.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to welcome the activities of those in British industry who are taking part in the economic integration of the two Germanys? Does she agree that such stability is the best way to stop people voting with their feet? Will she assure the House that the Government will continue to look at opportunities for English language training, know-how agreements and cultural and political exchanges that may further the process?

The Prime Minister: The single most important thing as regards East Germany is to do everything that one can to


support the setting up of a genuine democracy with plural parties and we shall do all that we can to encourage that. We always do all that we can to encourage the teaching of English language. The British Council is very active in that regard and its services are greatly in demand. Within the existing arrangements—within the framework of the Warsaw pact and NATO, the four-power agreement on Berlin and the Helsinki agreement—we shall do everything that we can to see that democracy comes to East Germany.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister realise that, on the issue of Hong Kong, she now faces a moral test of her premiership as great as that which she faced over the Falkland Islands? Does she realise that the long-term stability of Hong Kong and the honour of this country now rest on her finding the courage to face down the bigots on her own Back Benches and to ignore the moral bankruptcy and opportunism of the Labour party?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman would calm down a little, he would realise that we most certainly have a duty to those Crown servants in Hong Kong who have enabled us, and will enable us, to carry out British administration right up to 1997. We also have a duty to do everything that we can to keep the prosperity of Hong Kong going right up to 1997. That will mean making special arrangements for some people who are keen to keep that prosperity going. There are two groups of people. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will make a statement tomorrow about the arrangements that we propose to make for them.

Mr. Tracey: In the 1990s, will my right hon. Friend hold out the prospect to the British people of continuing her consistent policies upwards instead of the continual U-turns which seem these days to characterise the Labour Opposition?

The Prime Minister: The policies that have done so consistently well during the 1980s will continue throughout the 1990s, adding to wider opportunity, wider ownership, better training and all the things that we—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might help the House if the Prime Minister were to speak into the microphone. I call Dr. David Owen—

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I called Dr. David Owen.

Dr. Owen: Will the Prime Minister make it clear to Mr. Shevardnadze that it does not lie with the Soviet Union to put any veto on a free decision of the people of West Germany and of East Germany to unify if they so determine?

The Prime Minister: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the undertakings that have been made, for example, the Helsinki Final Act, which was signed by 35 nations and which states that there should be no violations of borders that can be changed only by peaceful agreement; the four-power arrangement in Berlin and the two alliances are the background against which any other changes must take place.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Once again, the European Commission is threatening our traditional Christmas

dinner by banning fresh turkeys. Will my right hon. Friend disregard this gobbledegook and ensure that we have fresh turkeys on the menus next Christmas?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that there will be plenty of fresh turkeys on the menus and on British tables this Christmas, but I shall consider the point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. McCartney: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some minutes ago.

Mr. McCartney: Does the Prime Minister accept that the reality of the last decade under her leadership has been a doubling in homelessness? What does she say to the fact that this Christmas 120,000 homeless men, women and children will have no room at the inn under her Government?

The Prime Minister: I do not necessarily accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. There are more than 21,000 hostel bed spaces in London, including over 3,000 emergency and direct access beds, of which sometimes 200 are vacant at night. They are not all taken up. We have provided another extra 21,000 hostel bed spaces in the rest of England since 1981 and we have allocated £250 million during the next two years for more provision for those who are homeless. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there are now 2 million more houses in Great Britain than there were 10 years ago.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ombudsman has refused to release his report to the House until 3.30 pm and that many Members want to read it before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry makes his statement? As soon as Question Time ends, can my right hon. Friend find time to ask her right hon. Friend to seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to delay the statement until 7 o'clock so that hon. Members can have time to read the report before my right hon. Friend makes his statement?

The Prime Minister: The time of the production of the report is a matter for the ombudsman and the other matter may be for Mr. Speaker to decide. My recollection, subject to your guidance, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a private notice question before the statement on Barlow Clowes.

Mr. Bradley: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 19 December.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bradley: As a pensioner, the Prime Minister will be aware that one of her achievements of the past 10 years has been to cut the real value of pensions to elderly people. In this season of good will, would it not be a good idea to announce today a substantial increase in retirement pensions so that all our elderly people can enjoy a happier and healthier 1990?

The Prime Minister: No. The value of pensions to elderly people has not been cut. The promise to protect pensions against price increases has been honoured and, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, in October we announced that old and needy pensioner couples could receive an extra £3·50 a week in addition to their pensions.


The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that this autumn we abolished the earnings rule for pensioners, at a cost of about £375 million, and we have also given a good deal of extra help to the disabled and to war widows. That is a good record. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Labour Government could not honour the inflation-proofing of pensions and that they cancelled the Christmas bonus twice.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I will take points of order after the statement.

Type 23 Frigates

Mr. Martin O'Neill: (by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will answer the question on type 23 frigate orders of which he has been given notice.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert): Competitive bids were sought from British shipyards for a batch of between one and four type 23s. Three yards—Cammell Laird Shipbuilders in Birkenhead, Swan Hunter Shipbuilders in Newcastle upon Tyne and Yarrow Shipbuilders in Glasgow—responded, and it has been an extremely keen and commercial competition, to the taxpayer's benefit. All three yards are to be thanked for taking part in it.
The competition demonstrated that our commercial approach is continuing to encourage improved efficiency in the industry, enabling it to compete more effectively here and abroad. It also underlined the benefit of ordering in batches and the better value for money that results from it. On this occasion, having invited tenders for up to four ships, we have decided to order three. To order four now, even all from one yard, would not give us significantly more attractive unit prices than ordering three. The new ships will be named Westminster, Northumberland and Richmond.
After evaluation of the bids, we have decided, subject to contract, to place the order with Swan Hunter Shipbuilders of Wallsend in Newcastle upon Tyne.
Swan Hunter's has won our order fairly and squarely on commercial terms. The value of the order is commercially confidential, but I can say that the average unit cost of the three new ships is significantly less in real terms than for the last order, which in its turn was lower than for previous ships of the class.
It follows that both Swan's and the other yards were extremely competitive this time. We are sure that they will be keen bidders for our future requirements. They will, for instance, be able to bid for another batch of type 23s, for which we hope to invite tenders next year.
Nine type 23s are now on order for the Royal Navy. It remains the Government's policy to maintain a surface escort fleet of about 50 destroyers and frigates. This latest order demonstrates as clearly as possible our commitment to NATO and to our nation's defence. At the same time, today's announcement confirms that we remain resolute in pursuit of value for money.

Mr. O'Neill: I thank the Under-Secretary of State for his announcement, which confirms the one that was made this morning in Press Association tapes. Although his statement will bring a sigh of relief to workers and their families on the Tyne, it will be a source of bitter disappointment to fellow workers elsewhere. Can the Minister give some hope to the rest of those employed in British warship building, by confirming the number of type 23s for which he will be seeking tenders in the forthcoming year?
Will he also confirm that he accepts the view of the Select Committee on Defence that orders of around 2·6 frigates per annum are necessary to maintain a surface fleet of about 50 vessels? Will the Under-Secretary of State confirm that price was the only factor involved in the

competitive tendering process? Does he acknowledge that although that process can drive down prices, it can also drive the losing yards out of business and thus prejudice future competition?
Finally, what prospects can the Minister offer in the way of alternative and additional work on the Clyde and Mersey—for example, in maintaining our defence forces' amphibious capability? The Government have talked about that for many years, but they have yet to come up with any tenders.

Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman gives a welcome, albeit grudging, to my announcement. Of course, the yards that have been unsuccessful must be disappointed—but not, I trust, despondent. On the previous occasion when an order for type 23s was announced—last July, by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) forecast the possible closure of Swan Hunter, but that did not happen. Instead, I am able to announce today that an order has gone to that yard. I am unable to say how many frigates are likely to be ordered next year, although we shall again seek to invite tenders for a batch of frigates. At the time of last year's announcement by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, called on the Government to maintain the momentum by ordering two more frigates this year. We have done rather better than that. We have ordered three.

Mr. Barry Porter: Is my hon. Friend aware that his announcement will come as a bitter disappointment to the workers of Cammell Laird? I hope that he will take into account the possibility that, by next year, Cammell Laird may no longer exist to tender for orders.

Mr. Neubert: We take wider considerations into account, and my announcement is good news for the Navy, for NATO and for the yard that won the order this time—in the same way that it was good news for Yarrow's when it won last year's order. Cammell's has a substantial amount of Ministry of Defence business and it will be able to bid for the new type 23 order that we hope to place next year. We are also evaluating Cammell's tender for an aviation support ship, which it has submitted together with its parent company. We must hope that with improving productivity and increasing competition—the competition for the previous order was extremely keen—other yards will be successful in the future.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Minister will know that his announcement will cause deep disappointment among the employees of Yarrow's —a goodly number of which are constituents of mine who found work at that yard following the closure of Scott Lithgow. However, I am sure that Yarrow's employees will not be too deeply dismayed because they know that they work in a first-class yard. Can the Minister say how commercially and financially realistic the successful bid was?

Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman's final question concerns a matter of commercial confidentiality. I commend the HMS Norfolk—the first of class that came from the Yarrow yard—of which we have received


excellent reports. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Yarrow was also very successful in winning the previous two competitions.
All that has been said is possible only against the background of a sound economy under a Conservative Government. The strength of our economy and the soundness of our defence policy is the greatest reassurance that one can give for the future of shipbuilding in this country. If the Labour party conference proposal of a £5 billion cut in Britain's defence was ever put into effect, the prospects for British shipbuilding would be bleak if not non-existent.

Mr. Neville Trotter: Does my hon. Friend accept that this is splendid news, not only for Tyneside, but for the Royal Navy, reflecting Swan Hunter's proven record for the delivery of frigates on time and without defects? Does he accept that it is a splendid boost for Tyneside as we enter the 1990s, with thousands of jobs ensured for years ahead? Does he further accept that Swan's has matched its proven record of quality and commercial success in winning the order against fierce competition?

Mr. Neubert: My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) has been exceptionally active inside and outside the House in the promotion of the interests of Swan Hunter's work force. He deservedly shares in its success today. Over recent years, the yard has established an enviable reputation. HMS Chatham was delivered without a single recorded shipbuilders' liability defect. It is a tribute to the efforts made in it and other yards that we had such a successful competition, which led to this outstanding result.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Will the Minister confirm the remarks that he made a few moments ago to the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), that wider considerations were taken into account in making the decision? Is that not a contradiction of his previous statement that he made a purely commercial decision? Does that not lead us to the conclusion that basically it was a political decision? Is it not the case that once again the Scottish Office has lost inside the Government machine?

Mr. Neubert: Given that Yarrow won the previous two competitions for type 23 frigates, it comes ill from the hon. Gentleman to complain because it was not successful in this competition, which was extremely keen. Price was a major consideration, which is the purpose of inviting tenders in batches and orders from competitive yards. However, that was not the only consideration. As a responsible Government, we must take all considerations into account. This represents the best value for money and the best for the Royal Navy and the defence of Britain.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: My hon. Friend will know that the value of batch ordering has been urged on his Department for a number of years. I am glad to note that it continues to respond to that advice. Will the next batch be of equal size—three? Will he give the in-service dates of the three frigates, and will he say whether they will be equipped with the type 23 command system?

Mr. Neubert: My hon Friend has a respected record of interest in these matters. At this stage, we cannot say how many there will be in the batch for which we hope to invite tenders next year, nor is it our practice to announce in

advance acceptance dates for such warships. I reassure my hon. Friend that the new frigates will have the new command system from their build.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Minister need to be reminded how serious the implications of his statement are for the future of Cammell Laird? While he is thinking about that, may I ask him two questions? First, can he say when he will put out to tender the new work for frigates next year? Secondly, has he had time to reflect on the bidding skills of the board of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd.? Would it be fair to say that its skills do not yet match those of the men and women who build boats at Cammell Laird?

Mr. Neubert: I readily understand the disappointment that will be felt by the management and men of Cammell Laird, their families and all those whose livelihoods depend on the successful securing of new ship orders. A competition is a competition, and it was fairly and squarely won by a yard that is in an area of above average unemployment. I cannot give the number of frigates that might be ordered next year or the timing of the placing of the order, but Cammell Laird has that prospect for the future. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on the policy of the VSEL board.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome in the north for this magnificent news for the north-east, which has implications across the region for construction and other spin-offs? I predict that there will be cheering on Tyneside tonight. Will my hon. Friend confirm that no one area has a God-given right to build ships? The only right that anyone has to build ships for the Royal Navy is, after proper competition and on full economic grounds, through producing the best possible defect-free product for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Neubert: Yes. The order and the competition that precedes it demonstrate, first, the British commitment to our defence, which is important, secondly, the benefits of ordering by batches and, thirdly, the competition that that creates. There are other advantages. Tonight there will be rejoicing on Tyneside because, we calculate, this order is equivalent to 10,000 jobs being sustained for four or five years. It is a valuable boost to employment in an area with above-average unemployment.

Mr. Ted Garrett: Does the Minister recognise that I for one give not a grudging welcome to his announcement, but a delighted one? I speak for the people of Wallsend. The shipyard is in my constituency and is where most of my employed constituents work. Does he agree that the tributes made this afternoon are to the credit of the work force, the management and the excellent trade union relationships? Finally, may I say that it gives me great personal pleasure that one of the ships is to be named after the noble county of Northumberland?

Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman has spoken in character and I join him in paying tribute to the work force at Swan Hunter that has secured this order. I can also pay tribute to the other yards that I visited and that are showing signs of improved productivity and extremely keen bidding. It was a most competitive competition and there had to be losers as well as a winner, but all the yards can be commended for their efforts to secure the order.

Mr. James Couchman: My hon. Friend will know that we look forward to welcoming HMS Chatham on the Medway in the near future after its successful commissioning. This is splendid news for Swan Hunter, the private management of which has grown in our respect in the past four years since privatisation. Does this order have ramifications for building a third auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel? Can my hon. Friend say anything about that yet?

Mr. Neubert: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on HMS Chatham, which come so close to home. I cannot say anything about auxiliary oiler replenishment vessels now, but the order has no implications of the kind that my hon. Friend suggested.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I welcome the Minister's announcement but, like many hon. Members, I understand the disappointment that will be felt elsewhere among the unsuccessful yards. Does the Minister agree that that disappointment might be mitigated if the Government were now to adopt a consistent pattern for ordering ships, as the Select Committee on Defence urged them to do? Does he agree with the Select Committee's point that
a single year's orders is not the same thing as a consistent ordering pattern over a number of years, and the two should not be confused."?

Mr. Neubert: That is the view of the Select Committee on Defence which the hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted. It is for us to decide at each stage what the needs of the Royal Navy are and what orders we should place to support a fleet of escort ships. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the Government's policy is to have a fleet of about 50. I am pleased to say that as a result of the order announced today and with the number of existing ships, the total in the fleet is 49.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that we have a busy day ahead of us, with two statements and an important debate. I shall call one hon. Member from each side. Then, I regret, we must move on.

Mr. Julian Brazier: My hon. Friend's announcement is the third in a row in which three ships have been ordered. For the benefit of the Opposition Front Bench, will he spell it out once more that these orders are placed not just on front-end costs, but on other valuable issues, such as quality, ability to deliver on time and maintaining a competitive base?

Mr. Neubert: I know that this is the Christmas season, but I hope that my hon. Friend will not see three ships coming in automatically. This time we have been able to order three ships. He is right that quality, delivery on time and general productive performance are important factors in securing a successful order.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Minister confirm that quality also played a part in his choice of yard for the order? His announcement will be greeted with a great sigh of relief on Tyneside, in the constituencies represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon), and by me. All that our shipbuilding community has ever sought from the Ministry of Defence has been fair play. We have tried hard to accommodate ourselves to the current procurement regime and to survive. Will the Minister confirm that today's announcement reflects that our community has done just that? I am sorry that it was not possible to share the order with Yarrow, but I was even sorrier last time when Yarrow won all the frigates and it was not possible to share one with us.

Mr. Neubert: The hon. Gentleman's comments are genuine and heartfelt. I have no hesitation in repeating my tribute to the quality of work at Swan Hunter, which undoubtedly led to the improved performance that has enabled it to make such a successful bid. It is a lesson for all yards that they must continue to work for better performance, to sharpen their competitive edge for orders here and overseas.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No. I shall take points of order later, after statements.

Barlow Clowes

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about Barlow Clowes.
The report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration on Barlow Clowes is published today, as are the Government's observations on it. Copies of both are available in the Vote Office.
The House will be pleased to know that, after very careful consideration, the Government have decided, in the exceptional circumstances of this case and out of respect for the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner, to make substantial ex gratia payments to all investors who have suffered loss. I shall give the details later. Equally, I want to make it clear that the Government do not accept the Parliamentary Commissioner's main findings, nor are the Government legally liable.
These are important questions upon which I want to make the Government's position clear. I am therefore publishing separately today the Government's observations on the PCA's report. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will read these observations carefully: I will not rehearse the detailed arguments here.
There are, however, a number of unusual features which taken together distinguish this case from other business failures. Although at the relevant time the Government had started on the process of overhauling the legislative background, before April 1988 the regulatory machinery was inadequate. It is also true that a large number of investors, many of them elderly, have suffered hardship. Many believed, although wrongly, that they were investing in gilts. They were led to believe that their investment was safer than it was.
When disagreeing with the findings in the PCA's report, the Government are not asserting that the conduct of the Department was beyond criticism, given the benefit of hindsight, but in the Government's view, the Department's handling of the case was within the acceptable range of standards reasonably to be expected of a regulator.
For the reasons that I have given, the Government have decided to offer substantial payments, without admission of fault or liability, to investors who have suffered loss.
The Government have decided that investors who invested up to £50,000, including reinvested interest calculated at building society rates, should be able to recover 90 per cent. of their investment. It is important to maintain the principle, which the PCA recognises, that investors should bear some of the loss themselves. This is particularly so for larger investors, who must be expected to bear a greater part of the responsibility for their own decisions. To reflect this, the Government have decided that investors should be able to recover 80 per cent. of their investments between £50,000 and £100,000 and 60 per cent. of investments over £100,000. The detailed terms of the scheme are set out in the Government's printed observations.
The scheme will be administered on the Government's behalf by firms which are already acting in the liquidation and receivership of the Barlow Clowes businesses. A letter has today been sent to all investors, giving them an outline of the Government's proposals. Detailed terms will be sent in mid-January, and we hope that processing of payments will be completed in February.
The Government believe that there are others whose role in the Barlow Clowes affair deserves close examination and who cannot escape part, at least, of the blame for what happened. It will be a condition of payment that investors assign to me their rights in the liquidation and receivership and against third parties. I give notice of our intention to pursue vigorously any claims which show prospects of reducing the cost to the public purse of these payments.
Parliamentary approval of this expenditure will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate in due course. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £150 million will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund. Receipts from subsequent recoveries will be credited to the Consolidated Fund.
Recent legislation and recent jurisprudence make it clear that regulators are not liable to investors in the exercise of their regulatory functions. The Government do not believe that it would be right for this case to be treated as a precedent, and if similar proposals are made in the future, they intend to respond to them in the light of the principles set out in their observations. However, because of the exceptional combination of circumstances in the Barlow Clowes affair, the Government have decided to respond generously to relieve the hardship caused to large numbers of people.

Mr. Gordon Brown: I welcome, after 18 months, this first payment to Barlow Clowes investors after the clear and unmistakable evidence in the ombudsman's report of five significant areas of maladministration by the Department of Trade and Industry.
Many pensioners have until today lost their life savings, and retired workers their redundancy payments. Can the Secretary of State confirm, in as precise detail as possible, what the average payment is likely to be, whether payments are to be made to the dependants of the 600 people who have died, whether there will be any contribution from intermediaries whom Lord Young has already criticised, whether he will definitely take court action against those whom he considers responsible to recover taxpayers' money, and whether the first payments are likely to be made before February so that investors who have waited for more than a year, some of them on the edge of bankruptcy, will not experience further delays?
I must ask why we have had to rely on the ombudsman to confirm the mismanagement, maladministration and incompetence that was widely known about more than one year ago. Will the Secretary of State explain—I acknowledge that he was not the Secretary of State at the time—why it took an internal inquiry, a departmental inquiry and now the ombudsman's investigation, instigated by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, before justice began to be done?
Does the Secretary of State agree that the House will find it strange that he is prepared to pay out at least £150 million but he continues to deny the Government's responsibility for mistakes and does not even apologise for his Department's role? Will he confirm that, while the need for compensation is agreed, the reason for the payment of this public money—our public money—is not the fecklessness, gullibility or incompetence of the small investors but the fecklessness, gullibility and incompetence


of the Government who, for months and years, ignored all the warnings about Barlow Clowes that were available to them?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the ombudsman's conclusion is that mismanagement happened throughout the 1980s, not just in 1985 and afterwards, when the firm was licensed and relicensed? That mismanagement continued during the 1980s, with the failure to heed at least 10 warnings, including warnings from the stock exchange, the Bank of England and the regulatory bodies. Will the right hon. Gentleman now tell us who in the Government intends to take responsibility for this negligence on a vast scale that is costing huge sums of public money?
Will the Secretary of State now show that his Department has learnt some lessons so that public money will never again be used in this way? Will he compel financial intermediaries to take out indemnity insurance against negligence and fraud, ensure minimum standards of competence among intermediaries and take up the Securities and Investments Board's proposals for tougher regulation?
Will the Secretary of State demonstrate that his aim is not just to lure investors into the market place but that he regards it as his duty to give them proper protection from the unprincipled and the unscrupulous?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman made many presumptions about the record of the regulators in my Department and what they may have done wrong. As he says, there are five charges of maladministration in the report of the Parliamentary Commissioners for Administration. I recommend him to study at length and with care those accusations of maladministration and the Government's response to them. He will notice that the only one to which the PCA attaches great significance is a new point that has never been raised before concerning the partnership in Jersey. I invite the hon. Gentleman, partial as he is, to decide whether his own thinking bears out what he said from the Opposition Dispatch Box this afternoon. He may find it does not. The first criticism of regulators in my Department dates from 1975. Therefore, he should not seek to make a party political point about the time during which these matters took place.
The hon. Gentleman asked what the payments will be. I repeat that they will be 90 per cent. of sums up to£50,000, 80 per cent. of sums between that and £100,000, and 60 per cent. of sums above £100,000. Those figures are based on taking 90 per cent. of the capital value, plus the compound interest due from the last time that interest was received by the investor up to the date of liquidation. To that 90 per cent. will be added the interest due since then. That is a generous way of recompensing those, particularly the smaller investors, who have lost money.
I confirm that the dependants or estates of the deceased will be eligible to claim their share of compensation. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is up to the Financial Intermediaries, Managers and Brokers Regulatory Association or the Securities and Investments Board to determine what to do about financial intermediaries.
We shall pursue as vigorously as we can third parties from whom it might be possible to recover some of the costs. I hope that all the money will be paid out in February, but that requires investors or their estates to

make the necessary claims as quickly as possible after they receive the forms so that we can issue the payments to them. Although the gross cost of what I have announced is £150 million, the liquidators expect to be able to return more than £60 million from the funds that they still have so that the net cost will be much less, and even less if further sums are recovered from third parties.
We have decided to make these generous payments, despite the fact that the Government do not accept liability, for the reasons that I have given, plus the important additional reason, which I think the hon. Gentleman will respect, that we felt that we should respond to the recommendations for making redress put before the House by the PCA. That we have done.

Mr. Ian Stewart: On behalf of many of my constituents and no doubt those of other hon. Members, I thank the Secretary of State for his full statement and the handsome scheme of recompense that he has announced this afternoon. No doubt it will be welcomed up and down the country.
When the Secretary of State reflects on the lessons to be learned from this sorry story, will he take it from me that it did not require a great deal of insight in 1985 to appreciate that the business of Barlow Clowes was not then being run in a fashion that would make it an obvious candidate for a licence? His Department's explanation that a cessation of business then would have been against investors' interests is difficult to understand, because if the money had been there, the investors would not have missed out, and if the money had not been there, there would have been no case for granting a licence at that time.

Mr. Ridley: I thank my right hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I am sure that the payments will be greatly appreciated by those who have suffered grievous loss. Many of them are poor people. On my hon. Friend's second point, I invite him to consider the extent to which what he alleges was indeed a lack of insight or whether it was a lack of hindsight. There is a great danger of mixing the two.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I welcome today's important step forward for the victims of this huge and vile swindle. The Secretary of State is aware of my special interest on behalf of two elderly constituents who lost not only their total life savings but their home.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the further hammer blow that has hit my constituents and others today? They have received demands from the Inland Revenue for thousands of pounds of taxation that they were told by Barlow Clowes had been deducted at source. If the Government are not to take back with one hand what they give with the other, will the right hon. Gentleman urgently consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stop further suffering for elderly and vulnerable people?

Mr. Ridley: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made that point about taxation, because I may be able to help him. I am grateful for what he said about my statement. As I understand it, the Inland Revenue believes that the payments that I announced today, both of capital and in lieu of interest—it is not interest, but compensation for the interest that was not received—would not usually be subject to income tax. There will be some cases where there is a complication with the question of whether


investor's funds were transferred from the international fund to the national fund. I advise hon. Members whose constituents have a tax problem immediately to get in touch with the Inland Revenue or my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I am sure that the Inland Revenue will be only too keen to ensure that the tax law is correctly and appropriately applied in all cases. It will be a considerable relief to hon. Members to know that the payments that I announced today will, in general, attract no tax.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As the first hon. Member to warn the Department of Trade and Industry about the activities of Barlow Clowes in late 1984 and again in early 1985, as a result of information given to me by my constituent Mr. Peter Hayes of the Plan Invest Group, I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. I thank him and the Government for the generous level of compensation that has been announced. It will be most welcome to the small investor, about whom all hon. Members are deeply concerned. My right hon. Friend has restored the confidence of investors in those institutions and the capital market.

Mr. Ridley: I am glad that my statement pleases my hon. Friend, whose role in this affair must be acknowledged worldwide.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Did you note Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State advised my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) to study the report carefully? Because of the way that matters have been handled today, with the report coming out at 3.30 pm and a statement being made immediately afterwards, it has not been possible to do that. We have had only a quick reading of it and of the statement.
Is it not odd that, although the Government disagree with the findings of the ombudsman—he should have the congratulations of the House because he found five cases of maladministration—they are nevertheless paying up because, they say, they like the ombudsman? It is a curious way for a Government to proceed.
Many of us will want to contact our constituents this evening and tomorrow because the mail is difficult at this time of the year. I notice that page 21 of the report states:
Investors will have approximately one month to decide whether they wish to accept the Department's offer".
The statement says:
A letter has today been sent to all investors … Detailed terms will be sent in mid-January.
Does that mean that we should tell our constituents that they have a month from mid-January or a month from now? That is the sort of question that we will be asked, so what should we answer?

Mr. Ridley: If the right hon. Gentleman reads it, he will see that the Parliamentary Commissioner's report includes the Government's decisions in relation to what he has suggested. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be wrong for the major statement of important Government policy that I have just made not to be the subject of a Government announcement to Parliament. There may be a procedural difficulty here, because it is rare that a Parliamentary Commissioner's report is the subject of a statement to Parliament rather than a written communication to the hon. Member concerned. If that is

not a happy procedure, I am sure that the relevant procedural Committee of the House would wish to consider it, but there are difficulties on both sides.
I have written to all investors—including, I hope, the constituents of the right hon. Gentleman—informing them of my statement today. They will receive detailed forms in the middle of January and it will be for them to claim the compensation that I have announced. If they fill in that claim form rapidly, they should receive the compensation early. I cannot guarantee that they will receive the compensation if they do not return their claim forms early —[Interruption.] I have said already that they will receive the claim forms in the middle of January. [HON. MEMBERS: "One month."] I said that we hope that all claims will then be paid during February. They cannot be paid during February if the liquidators do not receive the returned claims forms. It is entirely up to those investors who are due compensation to make sure that they get in their forms, or we cannot pay them in February. There is no cut-off date. I said that we hoped that all claims would be met by then.

Sir Antony Buck: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the generous response by the Government to the victims of this affair? Does he agree that this may be a serious situation here, with the Government disagreeing with the findings of the Parliamentary Commissioner? Will my right hon. Friend look into that further so that the matter can be considered perhaps by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, of which I have the privilege of being Chairman?

Mr. Ridley: The Government are perfectly entitled to have their views about the chain of reasoning which the PCA has employed in this case; my predecessors had doubts at the time of the Le Quesne report. We, too, have similar doubts, although on slightly different grounds, this time. The Government cannot be coerced not to put forward their view of such matters.
I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will agree that the important point is that the Government have accepted the recommendations for compensation, even though they cannot accept the reasoning. I invite the House to study the arguments on both sides, and perhaps many hon. Members will come to the conclusion that the Government were right in their reasoning.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The constituents of all hon. Members, including mine, who have been affected by the Barlow Clowes affair will welcome the compensation that the Secretary of State has announced. But the idea that the confidence of investors will be restored is more dubious in view of the Minister's rejection of the ombudsman's finding, which I read leaves the ombudsman absolutely unconvinced. I suspect that our constituents will be able to draw their own conclusions as to who they believe has the best judgment, the ombudsman or the Secretary of State. But can they at least be reassured that even if the right hon. Gentleman does not accept the findings, he will ensure that his officials study them and act on them to make sure that these events do not recur?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman should know that recent legislation, to which he may have contributed, and all recent court judgments have made it clear that


regulators are not liable at law for matters of this sort. That is still the position. If the Financial Services Act 1986 had been in place when these events occurred, 15 years ago, there would have been no question but that investors could have been compensated by the Securities and Investments Board scheme only if the rules of that scheme had been met. For that reason we have a different position now. But I do not believe that the principle should be allowed to be established that regulators are liable at law for any loss suffered as a result of their actions.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Obviously the House is very pleased to hear of such generous compensation, which will help many vulnerable people who were worried about the results of the Barlow Clowes affair. Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind, however, that the money will come from the generality of taxpayers, most of whom did not invest in Barlow Clowes and who therefore will receive no compensation? Is it not essential for my right hon. Friend to pursue every possible avenue with the utmost vigour in his efforts to get all the money back for the good of the generality of taxpayers?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one lesson to be learnt from the affair is that high-return investments often carry the highest risk? If they pay some attention to that factor, the public may learn the lesson so that such an awful tragedy does not occur again.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure him that the Government will seek to make the maximum possible recovery, through the courts, from any third parties who appear to have been to blame.
My hon. Friend is right: a high-risk investment is likely to be one with a high return. It was, I believe, in recognition of that factor that the Parliamentary Commissioner suggested that there should be an abatement, which he agreed should amount to 10 per cent. for investments of up to £50,000 and a little more for larger investments.
It cannot be assumed that higher and higher returns can be offered, along with the safe knowledge that if they get through the regulator compensation will follow. That is a clear reason for not allowing a precedent to be established.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Secretary of State make it clear whether he will now publish the report by Mr. Ziman and Mr. Hoffman, the DTI inspectors who were appointed on 4 June 1988 under section 432 of the Companies Act 1985, to inquire into Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers? If not, why not?

Mr. Ridley: I have not yet received the report. When I receive it, I shall have to check with my legal advisers to find out whether I can publish it immediately, but I intend to publish it as soon as that is established.

Mr. Stephen Day: May I join my hon. Friends, and some Opposition Members, who have been active on behalf of the investors in thanking my right hon. Friend warmly for his statement? Does he agree that, although the vast majority of investors will be delighted at the announcement, they will find the discussions now hovering round the technicalities of what was and was not done rather irrelevant? For the first time, those investors will be able to celebrate Christmas again. I am sure that

they simply wish hon. Members to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a very generous statement.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the relief from hardship and loss is the most important aspect of today's announcement, and I hope that hon. Members will not try to make too many legalistic points that will detract from its significance.

Rev. Martin Smyth: We accept what the Secretary of State has said about the need for us not to make too many legalistic points, and I confirm, on behalf of many people in Northern Ireland, their thanks for this generous settlement. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept, however, that today's statement has not really maintained trust in financial institutions, particularly if greater responsibilities are not to be placed on the shoulders of regulators?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said, but I believe that there is another side to the case. The risk involved in choosing where to put his money can never be entirely taken from the investor; otherwise he would always choose the highest-risk—sorry, highest-return—investment that he could find. The return must clearly be tempered in relation to the risk.

Mr. Michael Jopling: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the compensation terms that he has announced today are warmly welcomed? However, will he reflect that a basic problem of the case was that many decent but often inexperienced people felt, rightly or wrongly, that the Government had endorsed the probity of the company? What has he done and what does he intend to do to ensure that such a false impression is not given again?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will know that since then the House has passed the Financial Services Act 1986 which puts the responsibility for regulating such matters on the Securities and Investments Board, which has its own clearly delineated and contained compensation fund. In future, the SIB will be responsible for regulation. That is a much healthier state of affairs than the old one under which those events took place which, I am glad to say, no longer applies.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In so far as the ombudsman identified five grounds of significant maladministration by departmental officials and a great number of people have lost money on the licensed securities market, will the right hon. Gentleman now institute an inquiry within the Department on what happened to investors in Harvard Securities, Afcor Investments, Investors Discount Brokerage and Tudorbury Securities—whose activities were repeatedly drawn to the attention of departmental officials, and which have left great numbers of people with worthless investments?

Mr. Ridley: I do not believe that I should follow the hon. Gentleman into discussing other cases that are not the subject of the statement.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: When did my right hon. Friend first hear about the problems of Barlow Clowes, and was he informed earlier by any other Department of State?

Mr. Ridley: I heard of the problems of Barlow Clowes at the time of the collapse. Of course, I was not in the Department of Trade and Industry then. Since I have been in that Department, I have been all too well aware of the problems of Barlow Clowes and have heard little else since July.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that there is another statement after this one and a very important debate. I shall allow three more questions from either side and then I regret that we shall have to move on. However, there will be opportunities for right hon. and hon. Members to discuss the matter on the Adjournment motion tomorrow.

Mr. Peter Hardy: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), the Secretary of State said that the Government are not at fault and do not have the responsibility for investors in Barlow Clowes. Yet the Government took exactly the same approach to those affected by the collapse of McDonald Wheeler, which purported to have the blessing of the Government. If the Government can pay generous compensation for those sadly hurt by the collapse of Barlow Clowes, how can they justify their refusal to pay compensation to those affected by the collapse of McDonald Wheeler?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is already trying to widen my announcement and to make a precedent in a way that the Government had not intended. I must slightly correct his introductory remarks. I said that the Goverment were not legally liable for the collapse of Barlow Clowes, but I did not say that the Government were not at fault. If the hon. Gentleman reads my statement and the observations on the report, he will realise that that was not an accurate shorthand for what I said. For three reasons, there were some blemishes in the Department's handling of the case. There was a legislative vacuum in the sense that the Financial Services Act was not in place, and there was the hardship caused to many poor investors. We responded as I believe the House would wish us to respond to the suggestion of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration that compensation should be paid. That is the important point. It is wrong for the House to try to open up other cases in which the circumstances are, no doubt, wholly different.

Sir Peter Hordern: My right hon. Friend has reached a most honourable settlement, which is entirely characteristic of him. My right hon. Friend mentioned earlier that the Financial Services Act 1986 and the Securities and Investments Board, whiich is now in place, should prevent further such frauds. However, will he reflect that in September 1985 the financial services division of his Department asked the solicitors office for advice? That advice took two months to come, even in an interim form, and three months to come in a definitive form, and it was six months before counsel's opinion was even invited. Does my right hon. Friend agree that

lawyers, although not apt to be very speedy, have in this case excelled themselves in their tardiness and that the delay has proved to be very expensive?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments. However, I must riposte by saying that the Government have a collective responsibility for the decision that I have announced today, just as I share the collective responsibility for the decision that was taken at the time of the Le Quesne report that the Government were not liable and should not pay compensation. I must point out that the Parliamentary Commissioner did not find the particular event in the history of this unhappy matter to which my hon. Friend referred to be of great significance.
The event on which the ombudsman based the bulk of his claim that compensation should be paid was the fact that the officers of the Department failed to notice that the Jersey partnership had different partners from those of the United Kingdom partnership. It may or may not have been as a result of the failure to make that observation that further losses were suffered by investors. That is the point on which the claim of maladministration was mainly based and it will be for the House to decide whether it believes that that was the correct judgment.

Mr. George Foulkes: Is the Secretary of State aware that I am still concerned about the timetable of payments to my many constituents who were affected? I also have constituents who are still waiting well beyond the deadline for money from the investors' compensation scheme from the Greenan collapse. Will the Secretary of State ensure that extra staff are taken on, if necessary, to ensure that timely applications are paid out by the end of February and will he give us an absolute guarantee on that?
In view of the crucial and harmful role in this disaster that was played by the Jersey partnership, will the Secretary of State and the Home Secretary now examine seriously the role of the offshore islands in this financial area?

Mr. Ridley: On the latter point, I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the document carefully. There was a complicated series of events, and there is no possibility of banning offshore islands. Islands are there and always will be, so the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is impractical. On timing, I must make it clear again that when investors or their estates receive the form, they should make a claim within 28 days of receiving that document. If, for some reason, they do not make that claim, there are arrangements for late payments to be made, but it will be for investors to make the application. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will encourage their constituents to send in the claim as early as possible so that they can receive the compensation as early as possible.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no question of the Government's being primarily responsible to the investors in this affair? Bearing in mind the fact that it would be difficult or even impossible for many investors to prove any Government liability, and bearing in mind the costs of any legal claim, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's offer should be seen as generous—or even very generous—and should be welcomed accordingly?

Mr. Ridley: Everything that my hon. Friend says is correct. This is a very generous offer, which follows what the Parliamentary Commissioner suggested, and the main reason why we are making it is that we have respect for the Parliamentary Commissioner's office.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Although we recognise the generosity of the Government to all those who needlessly lost money in the Barlow Clowes affair, my constituents will be wondering why it has taken all this time for the Government finally to give compensation. Until the publication of the ombudsman's report, all the signs were that the Government were extremely loth to get involved. As a result, they have caused those who lost money needless suffering. In my constituency, one couple had to sell their home because it seemed to them that they had no prospect of being compensated, and the husband has since died because of the stress of the Barlow Clowes collapse. If the Government had acted immediately on information that was widely available, the damaging impact of the affair could have been avoided.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has heard what I said. We received the Parliamentary Commissioner's report only a short while ago. It has been considered by the Department and finalised by the Parliamentary Commissioner in almost record time, I believe, to get the news out as quickly as possible. I really do not think that we have dragged our feet. It took the PCA a considerable time to conduct his investigation but he must be responsible for that, not me. I must make it clear that we are paying compensation in the special circumstances of this case only because of the recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: Although I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, may I ask him to accept that many investors in my constituency—some of them elderly and some who were first-time investor—took advice from professionals? Will he try to ensure that such a tragedy does not occur again because such people are very vulnerable to the information and advice that they are given?

Mr. Ridley: I shall certainly draw my hon. Friend's point to the attention of the Securities and Investment Board, whose job it is to ensure that intermediaries behave in an entirely responsible way towards innocent investors who do not quite know the risks.

British Rail (Objectives)

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about British Rail's objectives for the period 1990 to 1993.
I have today written to the chairman of British Rail, Sir Robert Reid, setting out the objectives that I have agreed with him. Copies are available in the Vote Office and will be published in Hansard.
Since British Rail was first set three-year objectives in 1983, the management has had a clear framework for planning its business. It has achieved undoubted success in working to the objectives that my predecessors set in 1983 and 1986. Railway investment has risen sharply. BR is now investing twice as much as in 1983, and the result is that investment in 1989–90 is the highest for some 25 years. It is to go up by a further 75 per cent. over the next three years. At the same time, British Rail's need for subsidy has been falling steadily, as BR has improved efficiency and has attracted many more passengers. Over the next three years I want to see substantial further progress on safety, quality and financial performance.
Providing a very high standard of safety must remain the railways board's top priority. We allowed for £125 million for specific new safety expenditure over the next three years in the recent public expenditure round. BR is acting positively and quickly on the report published in November on the Clapham junction accident. I repeat the assurance that I gave at that time that finance will not stand in the way of implementing the report's recommendations. I shall look at what further measures may be required once the board's assessment is available in the new year. We are committed to ensuring that BR will continue to have the necessary funds for safety. I give the House the assurance that there will be no economising on safety. British Rail has also begun work in consultation with the Health and Safety Executive and the railway inspectorate on a comprehensive safety plan. I have asked the board to submit this to me by October, and to update it annually thereafter.
British Rail's three commercial businesses—InterCity, freight and parcels—have made good progress towards the financial objectives set in 1986. InterCity has achieved a major turn-round into profitability. The objectives I am setting call for further progress towards earning a proper commercial return on their assets. Intercity's objective for 1992–93 will be a current cost profit of £95 million at today's prices.
The overall objective for rail freight will be a profit of £50 million, and the board will be preparing plans for bulk freight to earn at least an overall 8 per cent. return on its assets by 1994–95. I also want to see improvements in the financial performance of the rest of the freight business, with still greater involvement of the private sector, so that it is ready to seize the new opportunities presented by the Channel tunnel.
On British Rail's parcels business, I have endorsed the £9 million profit target which the board has set.
On the two remaining businesses—Network SouthEast and the Provincial sector—I am very conscious of the need to strike a balance. I want to see continuing but carefully phased reductions in subsidy, which should be possible without excessive fares increases.
I hope that, by the mid-1990s, Network SouthEast will start earning a commercial return on its assets, and I am asking the board to produce plans for that. Meanwhile, I am endorsing the board's own objective of reducing the grant requirement to zero in 1992–93. I am satisfied that by then Network SouthEast should not need a revenue subsidy. It is carrying so many more passengers now, and the high and growing level of investment is improving quality and reducing running costs. Increased revenue from a higher number of passengers, and lower running costs from more modern equipment, reduce the needs for subsidy from the taxpayer.
On the Provincial sector, I am again endorsing the board's objective, which is to reduce the grant from about £400 million this year to £345 million by 1992–93. It is clear that large subsidies will be needed for Provincial for the foreseeable future, although there should be scope for some further savings and I am asking the board to examine ways of achieving further improvement of the order of £20 million by that year.
Neither reductions in subsidy nor the huge increases in investment will lead to large fare increases. These objectives are based on BR's own forecasts included in its corporate plan, which it will be publishing today. The plan assumes only modest real fare increases. I shall be looking to the board to continue to improve productivity to minimise the direct pressure of costs on fares.
I share the board's determination that quality of service should improve. Demanding quality standards for provincial services were set last July. The board has now agreed to a tougher Network SouthEast punctuality standard. These are tough targets, but the benefits of the investment already authorised will be building up over the next three years and will enable BR to give passengers a better service.
Demand for Network SouthEast and Provincial services is expected to continue to grow and BR will need to decide how best to accommodate it. Where, exceptionally, new capacity cannot pay for itself, a cost benefit evaluation will be carried out to enable me to decide whether capital grants would be justified on wider social and economic grounds.
The achievements of the past six years are a tribute to the hard work of the BR board and all railway staff under the leadership of Sir Robert Reid. With the opening of the Channel tunnel, the next decade will bring new opportunities. The Government are committed to securing a safe, efficient and high-quality modern railway network. The new objectives set out a clear framework for further progress towards these goals. I commend them to the House.

Mr. John Prescott: Does not the Secretary of State understand that today's announcement continues the disastrous penny-pinching approach that the Government have adopted towards British Rail since they came to office? Is it not the case that in the 10 years from 1983 to 1993 the Treasury will have denied British Rail £3·5 billion in financial support by reducing the 1983 levels of support? Would it not have made sense to spend that money on ensuring that Britain could play its full part in the railway revolution that is now sweeping through Europe? Is it not the case that, instead, safety, quality and reliability have suffered, fares have rocketed and we are missing out on the major opportunities offered by the Channel tunnel?
When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is no point setting tougher targets for quality of service unless the resources are there to implement them? Why has he ignored the views of the passenger body, the Central Transport Consultative Committee, which only two weeks ago told him that there was a direct link between the cuts in Government grant over the past decade and the poorer quality of service?
The right hon. Gentleman's grasp of detail does not always match his considerable public relations skills, but he will now have to answer the question about fares that he ducked last week in the House. I ask the right hon. Gentleman again: does he now accept that today's announcement that Network SouthEast must have a commercial rate of return by 1995 means fare increases of at least 4 per cent. above the rate of inflation every year for the next 10 years? Is not that the exact figure in the assumption, used by the Department of Transport in assessing the options in the road assessment studies, on which he reported to the House last week? He seemed to be somewhat confused about the matter last week and promised to write to us. We are still awaiting his letter.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that today's target will be greeted with outrage throughout Britain, especially in London and the south-east? Does he not realise that passengers are fed up with paying the highest fares in Europe for a dirty, overcrowded, unreliable service, and that the latest cuts will mean higher fares and even poorer quality service?
The right hon. Gentleman talks about passengers' willingness to pay more for a better quality service, yet fares are already twice as expensive in Britain as in Belgium, and one third more costly than in Germany, France and the Netherlands. How much more should passengers pay for a seat on a train which is on time and to guarantee a safe and reliable journey?
The right hon. Gentleman constantly claims that we can have either higher investment levels or higher levels of Government financial support, but that we cannot have both. Why not? They do in France, in West Germany, in Spain, in Italy and in Belgium. What is so unique about Britain?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Britain is at the bottom of the European league of Government financial support for railways? We are still bottom of the league for investment. Why is it only on fares that we are at the top of the table?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that not one penny of the investment claims that he makes comes from the Treasury and that all of it comes from higher fares, chronic overcrowding, property and land sales, redundancies and low pay? Will he explain that some 90 per cent. of the investment over the next three years will be for the routine replacement of trains, signalling and rail and structures and will not necessarily help to expand capacity in the system?
Passenger bodies are complaining to the right hon. Gentleman and to many hon. Members about the chronic overcrowding. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Network SouthEast passengers will be outraged that BR is already saying in its corporate plan that it will not be able to meet the target that he has set for reducing overcrowding in the system, despite the increase in fares that will flow from his statement this afternoon? Is it not


true that, according to the passenger bodies, train cancellations have doubled on the provincial services and have increased by 50 per cent. on Network SouthEast?
Why are there no environmental objectives in the statement? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the increasing bulk freight's rate of return on assets from 2·5 to 8 per cent. will reduce even further rail's share of the freight market, especially in view of the CBI's calculation that the cost of road congestion is £15 billion a year? How can it make sense to drive even more freight on to the roads? Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed that with the Secretary of State for the Environment?
The right hon. Gentleman assured the House that finance would not stand in the way of the implementation of the Hidden report following the Clapham disaster, but what does that mean in practice? Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on the statement to give an assurance that safety—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I hope that the House will always listen to points about safety. We have not listened in the past and we have now paid a terrible price for that. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the safety deficiencies identified by Sir Anthony Hidden will be paid for by grant aid either in the form of PSO funding or a direct safety grant and will not have to be paid for by passengers in even higher fares?
Finally, does the Secretary of State endorse the view of the chairman Sir Bob Reid when he said last week:
Our duty is not to run a service that is desirable; it is to run a service that will be profitable"?
If he does, let me offer the right hon. Gentleman some advice. He should take some time off from his tour of the nation's auction rooms peddling valuable old number plates to study the transport systems of other European countries and, yes, perhaps even use them. He may then realise that there are some things that may not be considered profitable in the narrow and petty-minded terms of the Government but which are desirable for a vital and modern nation. They include a concern for safety, for the environment, for quality of life, for economic regeneration and for the whole of Britain, and they are all sadly lacking from the statement.

Mr. Parkinson: When I listen to the hon. Gentleman, the thought that strikes me is that he is never happier than when he is attacking the work of the 131,000 people who work in British Rail and bad-mouthing their efforts.
Let me quote a passage from a White Paper produced by a Labour spokesman a little wiser than the hon. Gentleman. It says:
To use subsidies to disguise from people the cost of the services they are paying for is pointless, and to subsidise richer people at the expense of poorer is perverse.
There is no sense—I have made this point over and over again—in the people of Hull subsidising the service in London and the south-east which is used by people who are earning much more than they are and for which there is already an excessive demand. To subsidise a service for which there is excessive demand is an absurd waste of money and it is a silly way of reallocating the national income.
One would never believe it from listening to the hon. Gentleman, but BR has more passengers in every aspect of its business in Network SouthEast and Provincial and is investing more than ever before in Network SouthEast and

Provincial. Two years from now, more than 80 per cent. of the rolling stock on Provincial will be less than five years old and will effectively have been renewed.
The hon. Gentleman's picture of a declining railway suffering from lack of investment simply does not accord with the facts. The only point that he can make—it was the only point that he made in the course of his remarks—is that the subsidy is lower than it used to be. We have explained that we plan gradually to phase out the subsidy for Network SouthEast, to reduce it by £55 million from£400 million in the next three years on the Provincial network, and that that reduction, coupled with the growth in business, should not give rise to any substantial increases in fares. It is absolutely—[Interruption.] There is one simple point between the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and myself. He believes that the Government's commitment to the railways or to any other service is the extent of the subsidy that they provide. We believe that it is a matter of improving the service and of increasing investment.

Mr. Peter Snape: Why do the Government not prove that?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends are very enthusiastic about bad-mouthing Britain's railways and Underground systems. The right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) on a visit to Paris, praised the French for modernising five Metro stations a year and investing money. We are modernising 10 stations and investing twice as much—but all that we hear from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East is criticism. We are investing more money per route mile than the French. It is bad news for the hon. Gentleman that we are making progress and improving the system. We intend to carry on doing so, and to ensure that the fares do not increase excessively. We intend to ensure also that Britain has a modern railway system.

Mr. Edward Heath: We naturally want to give careful thought to the announcement made by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. I hope he will realise that it is difficult for many right hon. and hon. Members to attach much weight to any forecast or undertaking given by British Rail at the moment. That is particularly so in the light of British Rail's treatment of the fast link from the Channel tunnel. British Rail had four plans to consider, and after long debate and many public meetings, it reached the conclusion only six months later to cancel everything that had been discussed, arranged or agreed—and announced that it was taking an entirely fresh look at the problem.
Leaving that matter on one side, my right hon. Friend made the important comment at the end of his statement that particular problems will go to him for examination and a decision. I ask him to acknowledge that there is a difference between a subsidy—even though I may not accept everything that my right hon. Friend said about subsidies—and expenditure that is required for environmental considerations. The Government have pledged themselves to expenditure to protect the environment. It is not possible to have a railway that is profitable and which, at the same time, takes account of environment requirements. No railway in Europe does so.

Mr. Parkinson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend shakes his head in disagreement. If a railway is to follow its own profitable inclinations, its track will run straight through a town. Everything will be pulled down, compensation will be paid, and that will be the end of the matter. If a railroad is to take account of all environmental considerations, as we would like it to do, it must have a source of revenue other than its normal ticket taking.
The Channel tunnel fast link is also a matter of national concern because it will continue on to the north of England and to Scotland, when further environmental considerations will have to be taken into account. I hope that my right hon. Friend's concluding comment means that he is prepared to do now that which his predecessors did not do—accept that expenditure on the environment and on tunnelling is a necessary form of expenditure by Government, and that the question of a railroad's profitability does not arise.

Mr. Parkinson: As my right hon. Friend knows, the estimated costs of the fast link escalated enormously. No one really knew what the final costs would be. The figure of £3·5 billion was really a guesstimate. Because of the uncertainty surrounding the nature of the ground, no one could be sure what would be the true cost of tunnelling. It could have been billions more than the £3·5 billion originally estimated. That is why British Rail and its partners reached the conclusion that, although they could confirm the line to Swanley, they should look for other less expensive ways of connecting from there to Waterloo and then on to King's Cross. They are now doing so. Although I agree with my right hon. Friend that the environment must be taken into consideration, I cannot agree that the cross-Channel link should be tunnelled under London regardless of cost.
Coming nearer to home, the north Kent lines, which are also important to my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), are the subject of an announcement of specific orders for £257 million of new rolling stock in the modernisation of that whole network. While I cannot satisfy my right hon Friend on the fast link, I promise his constituents that their local lines are in the course of being substantially improved.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I welcome the fact that British Rail is achieving its objectives, and also that it is attracting many more passengers—because that is what the statement says. However, is the Secretary of State aware that practically all its passengers travel in discomfort because of overcrowding? What steps will be taken immediately to introduce new rolling stock—and I mean immediately, rather than over the next three years that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned?
The statement also promises that there will be no large increases in fares but that there will be "modest" increases. Can the right hon. Gentleman elucidate on the meaning in that context of the word "modest"? Most of the travelling public would like to know. Also, is the Secretary of State aware that the northern regions need to know urgently what connections there will be between them and the Channel tunnel? When might we expect an announcement on that aspect?

Mr. Parkinson: The investment plans of £3·7 billion over the next three years include orders for a whole range of rolling stock. If the hon. Gentleman reads the press, as I know that he does, he will have learnt this morning of the

announcement of another order valued at £350 million. In September, I announced a £257 million order for rolling stock. Our plans are being translated into action. As I mentioned earlier, we aim at modernising the rolling stock on the whole of the provincial network, and a substantial start has been made. The hon. Gentleman will see that for himself, if he looks around various provincial stations, as I do, and notices the new Sprinter trains on track.
British Rail has predicated its five-year plan on fare increases around and slightly above the rate of inflation. There are no plans for substantial increases above the rate of inflation. In some cases there are no plans for increases. In others, there are plans for substantial increases. The second year of the plan provides for substantial increases in the fares of long-distance commuters. We have made that announcement and there is no secret about that fact.
The long-distance commuter is paying on average only a tiny proportion of the standard fare, yet travels at peak times. The long-term season ticket is too good a bargain, and that is why there will be increases in various sections —[Interruption.] When I travelled to Brighton the other day, I shared a compartment with a passenger using a season ticket, and whereas I paid a return fare of £24·40, the season ticket holder was paying only £9·50—and agreed that he was enjoying a substantial bargain.
As to Channel tunnel links to the north of England, Sir Robert Reid's remarks have been much misunderstood. He said that, as announced, a service will be run from the regions to the Channel tunnel. However, at this stage we cannot forecast what the demand for it will be. The service will be increased if necessary, but if excessive provision is made it will be reduced. We are determined to give the regions proper access to the tunnel. The initial proposals represent a best guesstimate. If they need to be expanded, they will be expanded, but if they prove excessive, they will be reduced.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government and British Rail should be congratulated on doubling the rate of investment in real terms since 1983 and on planning for a further 75 per cent. increase over the next three years? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that much of that investment is concentrated on rolling stock in the south-east, which is long overdue for renewal? Following the Clapham junction disaster, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that finance will be made available for the rapid introduction of in-cab radio telephones, as there is some concern that that will not be done?

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, there are substantial programmes to increase expenditure on rolling stock in the south-east. I have made quite clear the Government's position on Hidden. The Government do not know, because British Rail is in the process of working it out, what the cost of implementing Hidden's recommendations will be. When British Rail has done that, it will discuss it with us. We made some provision in the public expenditure plans and we shall discuss further financing with BR. I have made it clear to the House, and repeated it categorically today, that safety will not in any way be compromised by a shortage of funds. The necessary funds will be available.

Mr. David Marshall: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the necessary funds for safety are made available to ensure that all junctions with single-track lines are reconverted to dual-track lines so


that accidents such as the one at Bellgrove in Glasgow never happen again? Will he instruct British Rail accordingly?

Mr. Parkinson: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Many pieces of single track up and down the country work successfully. The cost of changing them would be enormous, but if the hon. Gentleman has specific areas where he believes that there is a specific threat to safety, I should be happy to hear from him. In the main, single-track working works well.

Mr. Robert Adley: May I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House for having to leave immediately after asking my question to go to a Select Committee upstairs?
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the cost-benefit analysis. Does he accept that there is any relationship between the increase in complaints and the reduction in the public service obligation grant? Does he accept that the pursuit of efficiency must not be carried to the point where it undermines an essential public service? Does he ever think why efficient, prosperous and free-market West Germany spends three times as much taxpayers' money on its railways as we do?

Mr. Parkinson: I invite my hon. Friend to consider whether overcrowding has something to do with the fact that 25 per cent. more people are catching trains. I should have thought that their presence is the direct cause of overcrowding. That does not seem to suggest, as the Opposition attempt to suggest over and over again, that people are being priced off the line. Half the time the Opposition complain about people being priced off, but for the other half they complain about overcrowding.
My reply to my hon. Friend is no: the increase in the public service obligation grant has coincided with a substantial increase in other revenues. I hope that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that British Rail is not capable of cost saving or improving its efficiency, because that certainly is not the view of its management, who negotiated and accepted the objectives that I declared today. They are happy that they can meet them.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: What price tag is attached to the phrase, "no economising with safety"?

Mr. Parkinson: I have already explained to the House that we are unaware of the cost of implementing the recommendations of the Hidden report because costings are still being done. I gave British Rail the objective of reporting within three months, one month of which has passed. It will come back to me after that time. When we are aware of the size of the bill, we shall discuss how it is to be paid.

Sir Hector Monro: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement on investment, but does he accept that I am entirely unconvinced by British Rail's statement on the Channel tunnel link with the west coast of Scotland? Does he accept that we must have the facilities in place when the tunnel is opened or trade will never develop?

Mr. Parkinson: The problem with the west coast line is a passenger one. British Rail is not convinced that there will be sufficient passenger demand to travel from Glasgow to the continent by rail, simply because of the time

involved. There will be many quicker ways of getting there. Proper provision will be made for freight to serve the west coast, because I realise that industry, especially round Glasgow, is extremely important. It appears that there will be not as much demand from passengers because of the time that it will take to complete the journey.

Dr. Dafydd Elis Thomas: Will the Secretary of State clarify what he said in his letter to Sir Robert Reid about investment in local regional services, particularly where the level of return does not immediately meet the 80 per cent. increase in the asset base? He said that a cost-benefit analysis will be undertaken on social grounds and grounds beyond the straight economic criteria. Will he tell the House precisely what those grounds are and what he will be taking into consideration?

Mr. Parkinson: I recognised in my statement that subsidy will be a continuing feature of the existence of local Provincial services. We accept that, which is why the reduction in subsidy over the next three years is relatively modest. We expect that to be a continuing feature of the Provincial network. We recognise that there are wider social and economic reasons, especially in the provinces, for considering investment in services. Against that wider background, we shall therefore be prepared to consider the case for investment in the provinces.

Mr. Conal Gregory: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated by not only the users of British Rail but its many employees. As there are some 5,500 British Rail employees in my constituency of York, will he say why so far one significant omission from the objectives has been his plans for denationalisation? As they look forward to Santa's Christmas stocking, they should like to learn of the plans for that.
Furthermore, will my right hon. Friend say something about performance-related pay and the fact that British Rail has shifted the goal posts? Most hon. Members are conscious of the clock and are aware that "on time" means on time. British Rail has now fudged being on time from five minutes to 10 minutes late and related higher management pay to that. When can we return to accuracy and honesty with British Rail timetables?

Mr. Parkinson: As my predecessor made clear, the Government are considering whether and how denationalisation should take place. I must admit that that has not been a high priority for me since I arrived in my new job. It was made clear by my predecessor that it could not take place before the next Parliament and that that would be in at least three or four years' time. I have had rather more immediate problems to deal with, but the question is still on the agenda. I shall consider it and report to the House in due course.
The new performance targets represent a tightening up and meet a request made by the Select Committee on Transport, which said that off-peak and peak periods should be distinguished. We have agreed an overall target for performance and a subsidiary target for peak-time performance. In the past, peak-time performance was obscured by the overall performance figures. The figures are more open than they have been before, and it will be possible more easily to monitor performance.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: How long does the Secretary of State imagine that the travelling


public will take seriously someone who tells the Transport Select Committee that the roads are not capable of carrying a sufficient number of passengers and that, therefore, we must have an integrated service with railways and who talks about the need for environmental concern, but who increases fares and puts such squeezes on the finances of British Rail that it will find it exceedingly difficult to do any of the things that he has promised his electors?

Mr. Parkinson: I do not wish to take up the time of the House repeating myself, but last year we invested more money in British Rail than for 25 years. In the next three years, that will increase by 75 per cent. I know that that is very disappointing for the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] A Labour Government invented the concept of the external financing limit. It may be new to the hon. Lady, but it is not new to us; it was invented by her Government. Investment in British Rail is at an all-time high. The sooner she stops bad-mouthing it, the better will be the prospects for her constituents.

Mr. Keith Speed: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the commendable objectives that he has outlined today can be achieved only with a better trained, better motivated and better paid work force?

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for the brevity of his question. It came as a pleasant surprise after listening to Opposition Members. I agree that that is at the heart of the matter. It is encouraging that management and unions are now discussing greater flexibility so that they can attract the quality of people that they need to man the system.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the past four months a Minister of State at the Department of the Environment and the Minister for Public Transport have visited the north London link line for Stratford to Silvertown in north Woolwich in my constituency and that ever since then the quality of the service has taken a severe dive? Why does he insist on a percentage return on so-called book assets? Clearly that must prejudice the maintenance of property, facilities and equipment which would provide flexibility and reliability, and therefore increase the reliability of the service? Would not the removal of those facilities encourage deterioration and attack the morale of the staff who are the railways' biggest asset?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend the Minister is aware of the deterioration in the service on that line and has called for a special report on it. I must make it clear that he is convinced that his visit was not the start of the decline. Maintenance and investment in safety are not taken into account in seeking the rate of return. Safety is specifically excluded from any consideration of the rate of return on the assets.

Mr. David Gilroy Bevan: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the forthcoming and welcome statement that he has made and say that I wholly disagree with the comments of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) about it? It was as welcome as my right hon. Friend's recent evidence to the Select Committee on Transport. I appreciate that British Rail will invest an additional 75 per cent. in the next three years. Will my right hon. Friend now look

sympathetically and benevolently at the request to approve the electrification of the cross-city line, which I had the honour to open when I was chairman of transport in the west midlands in about 1979? At that time the stock was 20 years old and it is now that much older. May I hope that the long-awaited plans for British Rail which have at last arrived on my right hon. Friend's desk will meet with his approval, so that we can again surge ahead with this new method of motive power on that line?

Mr. Parkinson: thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. I hope that he noticed in yesterday's announcement that the spine road for Birmingham Heartlands was approved. I hope that we shall be notching up a second achievement for Birmingham in the near future when we announce our decision about electrification. Over the next three years £3–7 billion will be invested. British Rail's five-year plan is for a £5 billion investment in the next five years. These are massive sums. They disappoint the Opposition, but they will delight the travelling public.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Should not this statement have been made by, preferably, a Treasury Minister? May I suggest to the Minister that he travels by French Rail and sees an example of subsidy for public purposes, such as safety, the environment, getting rid of congestion and regional development? Does not the narrowness of the statement tell us about the narrowness of Thatcherism in the past decade?

Mr. Parkinson: No. The hon. Gentleman, who normally knows better, is once again simply measuring everything by the extent of the public service obligation. That is not the only measure of a Government's commitment to the railway system. If it is, I must point out that the Provincial network will receive £345 million at the end of this three-year period, which is no mean sum. The Government and the country recognise that certain rail lines cannot pay their way and need subsidy, but that is no excuse for those that can pay their way remaining subsidised.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his announcemmnt will create enormous optimism and hope among the hard-pressed commuters of Kent? They will feel that they have received a Christmas present under the tree. However, they will have some doubts about whether the box has anything in it, because, first, British Rail plans to use two passenger lines for freight in this most congested area of the United Kingdom and, secondly, some construction work is thought to be required to build the Channel link through London. The assertion by a senior British Rail manager that British Rail hopes that it can do that by weekend working only has not struck complete confidence among my constituents.

Mr. Parkinson: It does not inspire me with confidence either. My hon. Friend has been the staunchest advocate of his constituents' case in resisting the proposals on the Channel tunnel rail link and I am sure that he will continue to be. Some of the alternative schemes offer a substantial threat to Kent, particularly the notion of doubling the number of lines so that freight can run parallel to the new passenger line. That would represent a major intrusion and I hope that my hon. Friend will think carefully about it as he continues to advocate it.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement is wholly out of touch with reality for the commuters in my constituency and the rest of Greater Manchester who, for the past seven months, have waited regularly for trains that do not turn up, turn up late or turn up with insufficient carriages? The service has been so poor that the number of passengers travelling in Greater Manchester has decreased rapidly. What will the Government do to ensure that British Rail can provide the service that is essential if people in Greater Manchester are to be attracted from the roads to good-quality public transport? It is not being provided now.

Mr. Parkinson: There have been problems in Manchester and I understand that one of the reasons has been the failure of new rolling stock. Some people, including the hon. Gentleman, always insist on our buying British. British has not always been best for the rail system—[Interruption.] It is getting better. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that the Government have announced a substantial grant towards Metrolink in Manchester and the provision of a £23 million proposed rail link to Manchester airport. Although there have been difficulties, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that they are being tackled and that Manchester is getting its fair share of investment in the infrastructure.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: While the success and improved efficiency of British Rail to which my right hon. Friend referred may have been happening, is my right hon. Friend aware that this morning I received a letter from Sir Robert Reid, chairman of British Rail, saying that the service from London to Southend has reached a wholly unacceptable level? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the serious problems in some areas and the utter misery of some commuters, there is a case for a trouble-shooting squad to look at special problems? Can he give some hope to my constituents—perhaps even the pledge of coming to visit Southend to see our transport himself?

Mr. Parkinson: I will be happy to come to Southend with my hon. Friend and see transport there for myself. I recognise that, after the north Kent line, the Southend line is probably the worst line left in England. We have announced a huge programme for north Kent and I am aware, because my predecessor was not uninterested in this subject, that Southend desperately needs the same treatment. I shall press British Rail to give it priority.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will the Secretary of State not realise that the proposals for a direct service from the regions to the links with the Channel tunnel, and the proposals for King's Cross are, at best, second best for the regions? The regions, and the north-west in particular, need direct connections, bypassing London with public investment, and we need improvements to the west coast line and the electrification of the Manchester to Blackpool and the 'Roses' lines, and we want them now.

Mr. Parkinson: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed. Although there have been criticisms of the provision from the regions to the Channel tunnel, 3 million seats will be available from the regions through London to Paris and Brussels. That is a huge increase in the availability of transport to the continent from the regions. If there is a demand for more, the service can be

increased. I do not believe that it is reasonable to say that provision for the regions is not adequate. It is a guesstimate, but it can be increased if it needs to be.

Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend spoke of his support for British Rail's plans to improve the service to its customers. I invite him to tell the House which other nationalised industry, past or present, has shown any particular expertise in caring for the needs of the customer?

Mr. Parkinson: I think that most people would agree that privatised companies offer a higher standard of service. I am afraid that it is a great disappointment to Opposition Members, but it is a simple fact that when it was nationalised, a tiny proportion of British Telecom's public boxes worked. Now, more than 98 per cent. are regularly available for use. My hon. Friend is right; it is more difficult for a nationalised industry to give service. Nevertheless, British Rail, under the chairmanship of Sir Robert, has made a major effort. There is an improvement, and we want to see that continue under the new chairman.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is great pressure on the next debate, and there is an opportunity to raise this matter in the debate on the Consolidated Fund, particularly for hon. Members who represent London constituencies. Therefore, I will allow three more questions from each side, and then I shall call the Front-Bench spokesmen.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the consequences of British Rail's improved efficiency, which he referred to in the statement, is that elderly ladies are being mugged because of the removal of staff from many railway stations? An example is Kirkgates, which is one of the two major mainline railway stations in my constituency; all the staff have been removed. As a direct consequence, passengers are afraid to use that station. Will the Secretary of State consider the issue, and press British Rail to improve the situation and make funding available so that all stations have some staffing, in the interests of passenger safety?

Mr. Parkinson: I will look into the situation at that station in Wakefield. As the hon. Member knows, although there are proposals to reduce staffing on stations, they are accompanied by a substantial increase in monitoring equipment.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My constituency enjoys the dubious distinction of having had more railway lines under threat of closure by British Rail last year than any other constituency. I was relieved that my right hon. Friends said in his letter to the chairman of British Rail that in certain cases improved productivity may produce better results than bus substitution. While my right hon. Friend cannot give a definite commitment on the fate of those lines, will he keep British Rail up to the mark, and ensure that there is adequate publicity for lines? In recent years, we have been struck by the extent to which rural lines are run for the benefit of producers and the rolling stock, rather than the customer.

Mr. Parkinson: In my letter I draw attention to the fact that the case for bus substitution, or for investment and improved efficiency on the railways, should be taken into


account before arriving at a decision. It is also true that we are less enthusiastic about the possibilities for bus substitution than we were two or three years ago.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Secretary of State accept that people in Northern Ireland would like to share the benefits that will arise from 1992 and the Channel tunnel? Does he agree that improved rail and passenger facilities at Stranraer, on the west coast of Scotland, would help the economy of the south-west of Scotland and of Northern Ireland? We could all benefit from improved rail facilities.

Mr. Parkinson: I think that I had better discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether we can find a way to give the access that the hon. Gentleman wants.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the service provided by British Rail in my constituency is not what it might be, if the level of complaints is anything to go by? Does he agree that, as long as the railways are in the public sector, the levels of service and investment will always be inadequate? Does he agree that it is about time that we got that great industry where it belongs—in the private sector? We should break it up, along the lines of the pre-war railway companies, and get it away from the dead hand of state control.

Mr. Parkinson: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for an increasing number of people when he argues that privatisation could play a part in improving the performance of the railways. That is being considered as a separate matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is it not the truth of the matter that the Secretary of State came to the House last week and provided more than £1,000 million in public money to the road lobby, including his former employer, Tarmac? This week, he had a chance to provide money for British railways and he has refused. The truth is that he and his Government are better characterised by selling second-hand car number plates than running a national public railway.

Mr. Parkinson: One can always tell when the hon. Gentleman is on weak ground—his vehemence exceeds his ignorance. In the three-year programme that we announced the other day, we plan to spend £5·7 billion on the national road programme. We plan to spend £6 billion on public transport, so the hon. Gentleman is, as usual, talking offensive nonsense.

Mr. Gerald Bowden: When reappraising British Rail's objectives, and to optimise the opportunities that the Channel tunnel offers, will my right hon. Friend urge British Rail to reconsider its present plans, and the alternatives that are being discussed for a direct, fast and cost-effective link for passengers and freight from the whole of the United Kingdom to continental Europe?

Mr. Parkinson: As my hon. Friend knows, the range of possibilities were considered by British Rail before it took its decision to link up with Eurorail, pursue the line to Swanley and find an alternative route through to King's Cross and Waterloo. I have had a cursory look at some of the alternatives, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the first to admit that they are not without substantial

problems. The plain fact is that British Rail feels that it must focus on coming forward with firm plans for its chosen routes, and it is concentrating on that.

Mr. Peter Snape: Will the £3·7 billion forecast spending on British Rail have to be funded entirely from British Rail's own resources, or will the Secretary of State seek additional assistance from the Treasury for that long-awaited and much-needed investment? Has he discussed the plans with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment? What will be the impact on passenger carryings of increasing fares, in real terms, in Network SouthEast? Does the Secretary of State consider that it makes sense, environmentally, to transfer passengers from an overcrowded railway system to an already congested road system and does he agree that that will be the impact of his proposals? Does he agree that bulk freight's rate of return on assets is to be raised from 2·7 to 8 per cent.? Will that not reduce even further rail's share of the freight market, and lead to more heavy goods vehicles on Britain's already congested roads?
May I ask the Secretary of State about passenger transport executives, which he has not so far mentioned? [HON. MEMBERS: "No—too long."] Conservative Members should listen as their seats are at risk as a direct result of these plans. Does the Secretary of State intend that ratepayers in Birmingham, Manchester, Merseyside and Tyne and Wear, for example, must meet the full cost of rail services in and around those cities? What is the likely impact on the environment of such proposals?
The Secretary of State has had a fairly unenthusiastic response from his Back Benchers today because, in their hearts, they know that he is on a kamikaze mission, putting up rail fares in the south, and they are the accompanying passengers, whether willing or not.

Mr. Parkinson: I congratulate the hon. Member on taking about one third of the time of his leader and on being about twice as effective. Two thirds of these funds will come from the external financing limit, which is entirely guaranteed by the Government. The hon. Gentleman keeps predicting that, fares increases will drive people off the railways, but the evidence in Network SouthEast is that, as the subsidy has gone down, the number of passengers has gone up. The subsidy has fallen and there has been about a 25 per cent. increase in the number of passengers. To a slightly lesser extent, the same movement is mirrored in the Provincial system.
The Government and British Rail are following a Monopolies and Mergers Commission finding that too little of the true charge was being passed to the passenger transport executives and that the matter should be reconsidered. We, the taxpayers, are still paying an overwhelming proportion of the costs of Provincial. About 65 per cent. of the costs of Provincial are met by the taxpayer, and about one third is met by the customer.
We believe that there are substantial possibilities for attracting freight to the network. We believe that an increased return can come from a growth in traffic. That is why we are investing to ensure that that becomes possible.

Following is the letter:
Dear Bob,

New objectives for British Rail
Your current objectives were set by the Government in


October 1986 and cover the period up to the end of March 1990. They built on the success of the British Railways Board in meeting the objectives set in October 1983 on your appointment as Chairman. I am now writing to set out the Board's objectives for a third 3-year period from April 1990 to March 1993. These objectives will supersede the current objectives from next April. They supplement the statutory and financial duties of the Board and cover safety, quality and finance. They are aimed at producing a safe, efficient and high quality railway which is responsive to the needs of its customers.
Your progress over the last six years shows that a growing investment programme can go hand in hand with lower subsidies. Investment has broadly doubled in real terms since 1983 and is planned to increase further by some 75 per cent. over the next 3 years. InterCity has exceeded the targets set for it in 1986 by eliminating its losses and earning a positive rate of return. Excellent progress is being made with the electrification of the East Coast Main Line. Railfreight is being re-shaped into a business better able to respond to the changing needs of its customers, and is investing to improve the quality and reliability of its services. Parcels is undergoing major restructuring to meet the challenges it faces in a very competitive market. Network SouthEast is now beginning to keep pace with the growth in traffic. The Provincial Sector has improved efficiency and covers a higher proportion of its costs from revenue. The grant target for NSE and Provincial was achieved one year early. The grant that is needed is now nearly 60 per cent. lower in real terms than in 1983.
The objectives for the next 3 years need to consolidate and build on these achievements. You and I have agreed that we want to see further progress on safety, on quality (particularly punctuality, reliability and overcrowding) and on productivity.

Safety
Under the Transport Act 1962 it is the Board's duty to have regard to efficiency, economy and safety of operation. Providing a very high standard of safety must remain the Board's top priority. I know you are committed to acting positively and quickly on the report of Sir Anthony Hidden's Inquiry into the tragic accident near Clapham Junction in December 1988. We have agreed that the Board should complete, in conjunction with the Department, a review of its investment appraisal and funding arrangements for safety-related projects as soon as possible. Non-commercial projects intended specifically to improve safety are not expected to earn a direct financial return. I have made clear that in implementing the Hidden Report recommendations, finance will not be an impediment. The financial targets set out below take account of the additional safety expenditure you have already incorporated in your plans in anticipation of the Hidden Report. I want you to let me know within the next 2 months what further measures you judge necessary and what additional expenditure may be involved, so that appropriate provision can be made.
You have also begun work in consultation with the Railway Industry Advisory Committee of the Health and Safety Executive and with the Railway Inspectorate on a Safety Plan. I would like this Plan to be submitted to me by October 1990. The Board should update this annually and report on progress.

The Asset Base
We have agreed that the asset base of all sectors should be revised to include infrastructure (stations, track and signalling). This will require further work by the Board. When that work is complete, all investment will be capitalised. Meanwhile I have taken account of preliminary estimates of the full asset base in settling the equivalent CCA rate of return targets (before interest) for the commercial sectors given below.

The Commercial Businesses
InterCity earned current cost profits of £26 million in 1988–89 equivalent to some 1·3 per cent. on estimated asset values. I want to see further improvement towards the full 8 per cent. return needed on assets. As a further step towards

this aim, I am setting an objective for InterCity to earn a profit of £95 million in 1992–93, broadly equivalent to 43/4 per cent. on estimated asset values. I want you to continue to report achievement on punctuality.
Railfreight is facing keen competition. A return of 8 per cent. is the right objective for this commercial business to earn and should be the basis for decisions on new investment. I recognise however that some parts of the business will not be able to achieve a full 8 per cent. return over the next three years. I am therefore setting an overall objective for Railfreight of earning a profit of £50 million in 1992–93, broadly equivalent to 4·5 per cent. on estimated asset values. I welcome your intention to prepare plans for bulk freight to earn at least an overall 8 per cent. return on its assets by 1994–95. I shall want to see those plans by July 1990. I also look forward to seeing by then the Board's plans to improve the financial performance of Railfreight Distribution, to maximise the involvement of the private sector, and to reshape the business to seize the new opportunities presented by the Channel Tunnel.
Parcels should continue to maximise returns from its increasingly successful Red Star business, and I welcome the £9 million profit target which the Board have set for the sector as a whole.

Channel Tunnel Services
The Board should prepare and undertake investment to make maximum use of the commercial opportunities presented by the opening of the Channel Tunnel in 1993. I welcome your plans for a Joint Venture with Eurorail.

Regional and Local Passenger Services
Investment: The Government's response to the Transport Select Committee Report on the Financing of Rail Services (Third Report, Session 1986–87) clarified the criteria for investment in the regional and local passenger railways. I expect the Board to take full account of this in preparing investment plans and considering priorities. Both Network SouthEast and Provincial currently face growth in demand for their services. I expect the Board to increase services to meet this growth whenever the incremental investment can be shown to earn the required rate of return (currently 8 per cent.). Where exceptionally investment which increases the asset base cannot meet the 8 per cent. test, I shall want a cost benefit evaluation to be carried out in conjunction with the Department to enable me to decide whether capital grants would be justified on wider social and economic grounds (e.g. through the benefits of lower road congestion).
Fares: Over the last few years, progress has been made in relating fares more closely to costs and improvements in service quality. I expect this process to continue, but I want the Board to do further market research on the relationship between price and quality. I shall be looking to the Board to do as much as possible to improve productivity and make the most efficient use of resources so as to minimise the direct pressures of costs on fares. I want the Board to report annually on unit cost trends so that I can see whether satisfactory progress is being made.

Network SouthEast
On the Board's forecasts, continuing revenue growth and falling unit costs will enable Network SouthEast to break even by 1992–93. The large and growing investment programme will make a major contribution to this by enabling the Board to save energy and maintenance costs and by providing increased capacity and higher quality which lead to increases in revenue. The Board has already set an objective of reducing NSE's grant requirement to zero in 1992–93, which I welcome. I want the Board to prepare plans for NSE to achieve significant progress towards earning a commercial rate of return on its assets by 1995–96; I should like to see the Board's proposals by December 1990.
Quality: My predecessor set new quality targets for NSE in June 1987 and, following the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission (MMC) into NSE services, he agreed with you that those targets should apply route by route. I want the Board to regard the targets as applying not only over the day as a whole but also to the morning and evening peaks (taken together) and to report on performance accordingly. You and I have now agreed that the overall punctuality target


should be raised from 90 per cent. within 5 minutes to 92 per cent. by 1992. We have also agreed that there should be a separate target of 88 per cent. for the morning and evening peaks. You have agreed to arrange for me to be informed whether there are any routes and any time of day on which any of the quality standards will not be achieved by March 1993 and when the Board expects to achieve them.
The present quality standards are based on market research carried out by the Board into the importance attached by the travelling public to different aspects of rail travel. Incomes and expectations are growing in the South East arid I want the Board to complete its programme of market research to see whether changes in the quality targets would be justified taking account of passengers' willingness to pay for them. I shall want to consider in 1991 whether the quality targets should be changed in the light of this further work.

Provincial
Over the last 6 years the Provincial sector has been able to reduce costs, increase traffic, improve quality and charge more for it. Revenue has therefore increased in real terms. Subsidy including PTE payments has fallen from 75 per cent. of costs in 1983 to 65 per cent. in 1988–89. On the Board's own forecasts it should fall further to 57 per cent. by 1992–93. It will still be much higher on some service groups and it is clear that very large subsidies will be needed for the foreseeable future.
I have described above the Government's general policies on investment and fares for Provincial and NSE. What follows is of specific application to Provincial. You have now carried out a review of the scope for bus substitution on certain rural lines. Where bus substitution can provide customers with an acceptable alternative and is a more cost-effective solution, the Board will want to bring forward proposals. In some areas, measures to improve productivity and reduce costs may produce a better financial result than bus substitution. The Board will want to take this into account in drawing up proposals for these lines.
In preparing its full response to the MMC report on Provincial the Board will want to look closely at marketing and fares. Rail often provides a better service than buses running over parallel routes and it is right that BR should charge for the higher quality. There are also opportunities to exploit the attractions of scenic lines to tourists. I want BR to co-operate with others, including the private sector, to ensure that net revenue is maximised for these lines.
The Board has already set an objective of reducing the Provincial sector's grant requirement to £345 million by

Quality of service objectives
Annex A



InterCity
Network SouthEast
Provincial


Punctuality
90 per cent, right time and up to 10 minutes late.
92 per cent, right time and up to 5 minutes late all day.
Express Longer Rural 90 per cent, right time and up to 10 minutes late.




88 per cent. in morning evening peaks.
Urban Shorter Rural, 90 per cent, right time and up to 5 minutes late.


Reliability (Percentage of services to run)
At least 99·5 per cent.
At least 99 per cent.
Express Longer Rural At least 99·5 per cent.





Urban Shorter Rural At least 99 per cent.


Train Enquiry Bureaux
95 per cent, of calls to be answered within 30 seconds.



Ticket Offices
Maximum queuing time of 3 minutes off peak and 5 minutes peak


Carriage Cleaning





Interior daily clean
100 per cent.
100 percent.
100 per cent.


Exterior wash
95 per cent, (daily)
100 per cent, (daily)
100 per cent, (every 2 days).


Heavy interior clean (per 28 days)
95 per cent.
100 per cent.
—

1992–93, which I welcome. I would like you to examine ways of achieving further improvement of the order of £20 million by that year.

Quality
My predecessor set quality standards for Provincial services supported by the PSO on 28 July this year. Annex A summarises the quality standards for all the passenger businesses.

PTE Services
The MMC report recommended that the Board should discuss with the PTEs and the DTp the charging to the PTEs of the full measure of costs attributable to the operation of PTE services. We have agreed that BR should bring forward proposals for carrying forward this recommendation, in consultation with my officials and the PTEs. When the report has been considered it may be necessary to adjust the grant target.

Private Sector Involvement
I welcome the progress which the Board has made in broadening the participation of the private sector in the provision of services to the railway. The sales of BREL and Travellers Fare have been successfully completed, and the private sector is increasingly involved in providing ancillary services. I would like the Board to increase further the contribution of the private sector where this enables more cost-effective and competitive services to be provided, and to continue to report progress each year.

Public Accountability
I would like the Board to report performance and progress in achieving these objectives in its Report and Accounts each year. This should include:

(a) the quality of service achieved against the agreed standards;
(b) progress towards the grant targets for NSE and Provincial;
(c) the current cost operating profit before interest and CCA rate of return on assets for InterCity, Railfreight (both overall and separately for bulk freight and Railfreight Distribution) and Parcels;
(d) progress on increasing the contribution of the private sector.

Yours ever, Cecil

Cecil Parkinson

InterCity
Network SouthEast
Provincial


Load Factors
—
No more than 135 per cent, for sliding door stock or 110 per cent, for slam door stock. No standing over 20 minutes except by choice.
Express Longer Rural





—





Urban Shorter Rural





No more than 135 per cent, for sliding door or 110 per cent, for slam door stock. No standing over 20 minutes except by choice.

Points of Order

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take points of order, but I ask the House to bear in mind the fact that we have a heavy day ahead of us. We have a three-hour debate, opposed private business and an order after that.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that your predecessors have ruled that right hon. and hon. Members, when making speeches, should not read them but may make use of copious notes, I understand that to be the ruling for speeches in debates. This afternoon, we have had two interventions from the Opposition Front Bench, one of which consisted of about seven pages of closely written foolscap being read out. I hope that you will give a considered opinion about whether in such circumstances it might be appropriate for you to intervene.

Mr. Speaker: Front Bench spokesmen have always had an opportunity to rest their notes on the Dispatch Boxes. They should not be read absolutely verbatim, but reference may be made to them.

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you heard of any wish for a statement to be made by the Foreign Secretary on the mass killings in Romania? It appears that there have been further killings. I know that there is to be a brief Consolidated Fund Bill debate in the middle of the night on Wednesday, but I understand that that debate is on the whole of central and eastern Europe. May the House be given an opportunity to express its revulsion at the killings being carried out by the Romanian Government? The House has often expressed horror at atrocities and crimes committed by various Governments, and I hope that we may be provided with just such an opportunity before the House rises for Christmas.

Mr. Paul Flynn:: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are practical steps that Britain can take to curb the excesses of Nicolae Ceausescu such as intensifying our activities—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It would be far more appropriate for the hon. Member to make those practical suggestions in the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. There will be an opportunity in the debate on developments in central and eastern Europe.

Mr. Michael Stern: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed, in what is becoming virtually a weekly occurrence, that the business as announced at c. 1173 in Hansard last Thursday was once again amended within 24 hours by an order which was pushed through late on a thin Friday. Once again, private business, which many of us are not interested in, is being pushed later and later into the night and, as a result, Back Benchers on both sides of the House who believe that they are here to discuss Government business find that they have to be here longer and longer. Is there no way in which you can protect us from these extensions of the timetable?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that Friday is not a parliamentary day. The motion was on the Order Paper and the hon. Member could have objected to it on Friday if he had wished to do so.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns the statement about the ordering of frigates. Is it in order for the Minister to stroll into the Chamber, able to tell us the names of the three frigates that have been ordered but unable to say how many will be ordered in the next round or when he expects—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that I was unable to call the hon. Lady to ask a question on the statement. It is perfectly in order for a Minister to name frigates if that is what he wants to do. It is not within my power to dictate that he should or should not announce what will happen in the future.

Mrs. Fyfe: What kind of Minister is it—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. I am sorry that I could not call the hon. Lady earlier.

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), the golden boy of the Labour party, has again put forward an interesting blueprint about preventing people from owning second homes. The impact on marriage, the flow of funds from the country and the squeals of frustrated foreigners taking the matter to the European Court is not a matter for you, but what is a matter for you—

Mr. Speaker: Order. So far, I have not heard anything that is a matter of order. What is the matter for me? I do not have a second home.

Mr. Marlow: I, my colleagues and Opposition Members are concerned about the Register of Members' interests. There may be some truth in the assertion that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) has two homes and that members of the Opposition Front Bench have two homes—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That would be a good subject to raise tomorrow if the hon. Gentleman catches the Chair's eye.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises out of Prime Minister's questions. A strong suspicion, which I share, of political rigging during Prime Minister's questions, was expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on these Benches. Question No. 2 was not called until after 3·27 pm, when there were less than three minutes to go because questions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 were tabled by Labour Members. Only two—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not pursue that line.
In invite him to look at Hansard tomorrow and to see how many opportunities were given to Members on Opposition Benches to ask the Prime Minister a question as compared with those Members on the Government side.

Mr. Cohen: There were only—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Banks.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you think that you could order an early investigation into the acoustics of the Chamber? I have been here since June 1983 and, until recently, I have never had any difficulty hearing the shrill tones of the Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions, but I and my colleagues at the back of the Chamber are now finding it extremely difficult to hear her. It must be

something to do with the acoustics. I cannot believe that it is anything to do with the television cameras and the Prime Minister's new cuddly toy phase.

Mr. Speaker: I have instituted an inquiry into the microphones. My personal view is that they are not quite as good or accurate as they used to be. I am looking into the matter.

Mr. Barry Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask about question 189 for written answer about the global budget of the National Health Service in next year's financial budget. The Secretary of State for Wales has not seen fit to make a statement about a matter involving a budget of £1·5 billion, 50,000 employees and every community in the Principality. The Secretary of State is giving us government by press release. Can you, Mr. Speaker, ensure that the Secretary of State for Wales will come to the House, make a statement and submit to questions so that we can tell him the problems that we see regarding waiting lists, the care of the elderly and the impact of inflation on the NHS budget?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not within my power to require the Secretary of State to come here. I am sure that what he has said has been noted on the Government Front Bench. We must move on to the debate.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not taking it. I asked the hon. Gentleman to sit down.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not taking it, and I have told the hon. Gentleman that.

Mr. Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Francis Maude.

ESTIMATES DAY

[IST ALLOTED DAY] [IST PART]

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1989–90

Class II Vote 2

[Relevant Documents: second report from the Foreign Affairs Committee ( House of Commons paper No. 281–1 of Session 1988–89) on Hong Kong, the observations by the Government on the report (Cm. 927), and the minutes of evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 13 December 1989 ( House of Commons paper No. 58-ii).]

Vietnamese Boat People

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on other external relations.—[Mr. Maude.]

Mr. David Howell: The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs will be grateful for the opportunity for us to debate this afternoon the appallingly difficult question of the future of the Vietnamese boat people—although, in view of the subject's sensitive nature and the deep emotions which it arouses on all sides, I am not sure how grateful the Chairman and Committee will be for the chance to put their heads in this noose.
The debate technically arises from the Estimates, as you, Mr. Speaker, reminded us, although the House will wish to address the principle raised by the Government's policy and decisions on the boat people. I shall briefly allude to the Estimates, which are by no means chickenfeed. We are dealing with expenditures already made by the British Government of £30 million and by the Hong Kong Government of £200 million to cope with the accommodation and expenses arising from their present policy for dealing with the Vietnamese boat people in Hong Kong. We should note that substantial expenditure, but must turn our minds to the principle raised by the Government's policy.
How to handle the Vietnamese boat people—the refugees and migrants—poses one of the most agonising decisions for my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is possibly one of the most difficult decisions which they or the Government have had to face for a long time. That agony and difficulty deserves understanding—perhaps a little more understanding than it has attracted from some quarters recently. The responsibility of these difficult issues bears down heavily on the shoulders of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The Select Committee considered this issue when looking at the broader subject of Hong Kong's future last summer. The report issued by the Select Committee at the end of June, after the Tiananmen square horrors, mentioned this matter. The Committee's views were generally, unanimous. However, on the precise question of the Vietnamese boat people and how to deal with them, Committee members had various views. Some of the votes taken on the precise wording of those views reflect the agony and difficulty of any body of people, any hon.

Members, any liberal people wanting to reach the best solutions in public affairs—as I hope that the Committee felt it was—when facing such as awkward choice.
The following statement about the boat people was unanimously supported in the Committee. It stated:
Faced with a declining level of acceptances by resettlement countries and a suddenly and massively increasing population of boat people, we believe that the Hong Kong Government had no alternative but to introduce a screening policy.
That policy began to differentiate between those deemed to be genuine political refugees, fleeing from persecution, and those designated economic migrants.
The Committee's report continued—the words were unanimously agreed:
We accept that the logical consequence of a screening programme is the repatriation of those who have been screened out.
That was accepted. There was a further sentence, against which some Committee members felt they had to vote.
Therefore, although the sentence was in the report because it reflected a majority view, it was not unanimously supported. That sentence stated:
We believe that, in the absence of significant levels of voluntary repatriation, however regrettable it may be, there is no alternative to the mandatory repatriation of those who are screened out.
Another set of views was supported by a different majority in the Committee. The pattern of different majorities forming shows how immensely difficult and complex the issue is. The different majority added:
We note that these people are fleeing not from persecution but from extreme poverty and that over 50 per cent. of them are under the age of 20 years. This calls for special ways in dealing with these young people and if as a last resort, they must return to Vietnam, the authorities dealing with them must act in a humane way and ensure that they are adequately provided for. Assistance should also be given to allow them to settle down in Vietnam.
I have sought to represent as fairly as possible the Select Committee's position. My other Committee colleagues from both sides of the House will wish to give their interpretation of the report, but I have given the words used and the ways in which we reached our conclusions. The difficulties that we faced when debating the matter, even all those months ago, were a precursor of the immense difficulties that we would face when it came to making a decision.
My right hon. and hon. Friends face the choice of two evils. This is not one of those wonderful times when there is good on one side and bad on the other and a simple choice can be made. This issue involves the awful complexity of a Government having to reach decisions and carry responsibility when no course is a good course. The lesser evil is that of taking the decisions which have now been made, versus the greater evil of doing nothing, not making the decisions and seeking to obtain other support to resolve the problem. We would then find that we had inflicted more cruelty, suffering and inhuman conditions on thousands of hapless people.
Having tried all other avenues, it is right to act in these few days in which we are debating the matter—for the simple reason that, if we do not act, thousands and thousands more Vietnamese boat people will float in on the early spring tides. They will come in their tens, perhaps even hundreds, of thousands. They will not only constitute a huge migration but cause chaos in Hong Kong which will lead to suffering on a far larger scale than anything we have yet seen. When balancing the choice between the


evils, those who argue that we should once more try to delay taking action must face up to the responsibility that they may, by their good intentions, create many more difficulties and much more suffering than we have seen so far.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is it not also a very heavy factor in this most difficult choice that the Government who showed themselves to be so utterly ruthless in Tiananmen square have made it clear that they will feel no responsibility towards those hapless people if they are left in Hong Kong in 1997?

Mr. Howell: That is certainly the case. We tend to measure these matters against our own, we hope, high standards in this House. We forget the attitude towards the boat people and their activities that prevails in many parts of Asia. We forget at our peril that many of those boats are turned away from other countries and sent to sea again, where all the people in them—men, women and children—drown. We forget that a great deal of the current migration is organised not by people who, through good will, want to provide transport to a freer life and a better world—whether in Hong Kong, America or Canada —but by the most ruthless racketeers. They are ripping off those poor people, persuading them of all sorts of false objectives, removing from them their precious dollars and gold savings, and then cruelly sending them to sea in unseaworthy craft or putting them in buses and sending them up the coast. It is as much an evil trade as drugs or prostitution, and we are seeing its end product in the miserable camps in Hong Kong. The hapless people are bewildered, conned and misled. They have been driven to what they thought would be a better life, only to find that it is not.
That is the background against which the Government have had to make a decision. They have to carry the responsibility, and have little choice but to act now, as they are doing. My hon. Friend the Minister will make the Government's position clear when he speaks. I hope that the Opposition's position will also be made clear.

Mr. Ron Leighton: The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the Vietnamese people were fleeing from poverty. That poverty largely stems from the blockade of Vietnam by western powers. Did the Committee address that matter with a view to changing policy to help to eradicate poverty in Vietnam?

Mr. Howell: I have given the view of members of the Committee—although not all members—that additional assistance should be mobilised in co-operation with and for Vietnam. The hon. Gentleman must accept that, although aid and assistance from outside can help a society and an economy, the basic conditions and the basic way in which a Government treat their citizens are matters for decision inside that society. We must face the fact that, in recent years, Vietnam has been an extremely nasty place to live for individuals and for liberal values. However, there may be a chink of light. The position may now be changing, and in that may lie our hope—

Mr. Chris Mullin: rose—

Mr. Howell: I do not think that anyone, not even the hon. Gentleman who wants to intervene, can claim that it is all beer and skittles in Vietnam.

Mr. Mullin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many of those people are fleeing not the Stalinist system of economics, which I probably deprecate as much as he does, but market forces? Many of them come from the coastal areas of North Vietnam such as Honggai and Haiphong. They are fleeing because the Government have adopted the World bank recommendations and cut off subsidy to the coal mines. Of course, the north of England is familiar with that. I shall leave aside the point that those towns were flattened by American B52s.

Mr. Howell: We are now getting into a debate about Vietnam's past. It has had its problems, but it has also brought problems upon itself.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I am dwelling not on the past, but on the present Vietnam. The report on the British refugee camps prepared by Alf Dubs and Lord Ennals specifically states:
returnees are in no danger when they are back in Vietnam; that they can choose where to live and that they receive assistance to resume their lives.
They expressed the view that more people in Hong Kong should be aware of that truth.

Mr. Howell: That is an important point.
I have heard some unkind people suggest that the Opposition's posture was opportunist. I do not think that it is; I certainly would not lay that charge upon them. However, given the complexity of, and the obvious dilemma in dealing with, the problem, it is regrettable that those on the Opposition Front Bench have not appreciated the value of seeking a bipartisan approach on such an immensely difficult issue. It is their right so to choose, but it is a great pity for the aims of the policy and for the reputation of this country.
I suppose that those who are totally disinterested must ask why, if people find this forced repatriation not only appalling—as we all do—but so appalling that the even greater risks of doing nothing should be run, there are no feelings about the forced repatriation of people from Hong Kong to China, which happens every day on as big a scale as anything that we are contemplating. I understand that, last year, about 30,000 people were forcibly repatriated from Hong Kong to China, with the agreement of the Chinese Government.
We can all make comments about the state of affairs in different countries, but I do not think that since the summer anyone has argued that China is a home of happiness and liberalism and that those people have been returned to a wonderful, open and welcoming country. Indeed, I dread to think of what has happened to some of them. While I do not wish to make any party points, it must be recognised that if one takes a certain stance on the question of forced repatriation, the same stance and the same standards must be applied to the other forced repatriations that have been taking place for many years.
I want to be brief, but I must say a word about the United States of America. I have always admired that country and, in many areas of human rights, it has been fine. However, in this matter I think that Washington's policy is pure humbug. The Select Committee report quoted the words of Sir David Wilson—who, as Governor of Hong Kong, is in an immensely difficult position that requires some understanding in the House. He said about the boat people:
they are…not trying to go to Hong Kong but to go to places of resettlement. Above all, they are trying to go to


North America which has said that these people do not qualify for resettlement in the United States as ordinary refugees because they come from north Vietnam…Hong Kong is caught between this upper and nether millstone.
The former Foreign Secretary, in evidence to the Committee, expressed his bewilderment that the United States seemed
to support the prospect of indefinite accumulation of people in places like Hong Kong and that is clearly not a tenable position.
The Committee unanimously concluded:
We believe the American position fails totally to understand the seriousness of the problem or its damaging consequences both to the people of Hong Kong and the Vietnamese.
It is also damaging to the many other people involved. The United States policy-makers—those who are currently influential in Washington—just as they appear to be wrong about Europe, are wrong about Hong Kong and are probably wrong about their policy on China.
This is a situation in which there is no choice but to take an ugly and difficult decision to avert an even greater injustice and conflict. Those who cry halt now—those who say that there must be some other way, even though every conceivable way has been sought—would themselves, I fear, carry the responsibility for the even more catastrophic consequences of inaction.
We are asked by leaders and guides in the world and by others among the public to search our consciences. Those who argue that this action should not now be pursued need to search their consciences just as minutely and carefully.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. It is clear that a large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. Many will be disappointed unless speeches are brief.

6 pm

Mr. George Foulkes: We on the Opposition Benches welcome this debate, which is taking place not before time. We have been calling for a debate on this urgent matter for many months—[Interruption] It has been a matter of Government responsibility. The Government have been dodging this issue on the Floor of the House, while at the same time secretly hatching their plan for forced deportation. I assure the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) that that is not the best way to achieve a bipartisan approach on this issue.
The motion is a technical one on the Estimates. The Opposition view is represented by motion No. 46 in the notices of motions, which cannot be tabled because of a procedural technicality. But that motion effectively is what my hon. Friends and I support tonight.
I also assure the right hon. Member for Guildford that Opposition Members appreciate the problems of the Governments of Hong Kong and the United Kingdom. The conditions in the camps are intolerable, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and I saw when we visited them in June. The outbreak of cholera, the rioting, the absence of education for the children and many other matters testify to the abject misery of life there.
We also recognise that if all that we do every time the boats arrive from Vietnam is to arrange the resettlement in the West of every person, the flow will continue unabated, and the situation will be increasingly difficult for Hong Kong and damaging for Vietnam. That is why we must tackle the root cause of the problem with a viable, long-term, stable but, above all, humane solution.
We disagree totally with forced deportation. Having said that time and again, our view should come as no surprise to Conservative Members. We have said it at Question Time and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and I have said it in statements. We oppose it because it is heartless and inhumane. I predicted that it would have to be done by a moonlight flit, and so it was —deliberately to escape the attention of the world's media.

Mr. Michael Grylls: My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) mentioned the return of illegal immigrants from Hong Kong to China, a policy that has gone on for many years. How does the hon. Gentleman square his ridiculous attack on the British Government's Vietnamese policy with the fact that when Labour was in government between 1974 and 1979—the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was a member of that Government—they returned from Hong Kong well over 100,000 illegal Chinese immigrants with very little screening? That shows the utter hypocrisy of Labour policy in this matter.

Mr. Foulkes: Chinese refugees are returned one by one at the border. We are here talking of people who have settled in camps and of families with children, some of whom were born in the camps. This is an entirely different issue.

Mr. Terry Dicks: That is typical of you lot—two-faced.

Mr. Foulkes: I will not take anything from that racist hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) must withdraw that remark.

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) is well known for his statements to the media, although not for his statements in the House. I let them stand on their merit and I withdraw—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the word that he used.

Mr. Foulkes: I have withdrawn it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman's statement stands as testimony.
The Government have not explained why that moonlight flit was done at 3 o'clock in the morning, if not to try to dodge the attention of the media, or why, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gorton said, nearly 200 riot police with riot helmets, shields and batons were needed—[Interruption] The facts appeared in every newspaper, including The Daily Telegraph, The Times and The Financial Times. That was done to remove 51 people, 43 of them women and children. Why was violence needed? [Interruption] The Conservative lackeys of the Foreign Office might read what was said—[Interruption] If Conservative Members want to treat this issue seriously, they should stop barracking and listen carefully to what is


being said. They should also read The Daily Telegraph today—not a radical Left-wing newspaper—which reports that martial arts were applied in the deportations and that handcuffs were being used. It was described in an editorial in The Times as "a sordid action," and that is indeed what it was.
We have warned the Government repeatedly that there would be justifiable outrage when pictures of boat people being forcibly deported were seen on television sets in sitting rooms throughout the world.

Mr. Thomas Graham: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Pope in Vatican City is responsible for Catholics in Britain and throughout the world. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) said that the Pope should put his hands in his pockets and fork out money from the rich coffers of the Catholic Church to assist the boat people. Indeed, he suggested that the Pope could authorise the sale of two or three Vatican paintings to help the economy of Vietnam and thereby show what a good Catholic he was.
Does my hon. Friend agree that that reveals the hypocrisy of people such as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington? After all, if the British Government had to take such steps to deal with the problems of the elderly, disabled and other needy folk in this country, it would be utter nonsense.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Perhaps we expect the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks) to insult the Pope. It was even more despicable that an anonymous Downing street source should have done so.
On a number of occasions—for example, at Foreign Office Question Time on 25 October, at Prime Minister's Question Time on 26 October and, as the Minister will confirm, when I met him on 7 September—my right hon. Friends and I urged the Government to abandon their plans for forcible repatriation. The Government have used the phrase "an orderly return programme" and recently a senior Hong Kong Government official told me that they would send home only those who acquiesced. That is euphemistic, semantic hypocrisy.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): I confirm that the hon. Gentleman urged us not to go ahead with this policy. I also confirm that he had no alternative.

Mr. Foulkes: That is not true, and I shall be dealing with that point.
The Opposition have a number of serious concerns, not least about the screening of asylum seekers, who are told too little about the procedures. No legal advice or assistance is given to them and there are only six United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees monitors for 600 daily interviews, so they can attend only a fraction of the interviews. The whole system is biased in favour of rejection. Immigration officers have power only to reject. Acceptance must be referred up. How, in any case, do they differentiate in this instance between political and economic refugees? I hope that the Minister will give us some idea of the criteria used and whether they are the same criteria as were used when welcoming people from East Germany.
On 12 December, the Foreign Secretary said that the British Refugee Council had approved the screening

procedures. I have read the report and spoken to the director of the British Refugee Council. He, like people from Amnesty International and other organisations, are critical of the screening procedures.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I am anxious to establish whether the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about political refugees being turned back, particularly in boats. It takes us back some 40 years to another Labour Administration who turned away genuine Jewish political refugees who were trying to return to Palestine, sending them back to the Soviet Union and elsewhere in eastern Europe, almost certainly to their deaths. Is the hon. Gentleman part of that, or will he denounce it today?

Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman does not have his facts entirely right, but I am sure that in any event he would agree that two wrongs do not make a right. An action of which he is understandably and properly critical provides no justification for the subsequent action that we are discussing.
We are also concerned about the lack of effort, enthusiasm and commitment devoted to persuading refugees to return. That is because the Government decided on forced repatriation many months ago, and have maintained a blinkered attitude ever since. They tried to persuade other nations at Geneva in June, and failed; their heart has not been in the voluntary scheme, because they wanted it to fail so that they could return to Geneva in November and persuade other countries to accept compulsion, but they did not succeed then either. Contrary to what has been implied by some Conservative Members, no agreement on compulsory repatriation was made at Geneva: the British Government are alone in that regard.

Mr. Maude: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the international community is unanimous in its view that there is nowhere for these people to go other than back to Vietnam? Is he seriously suggesting that the Government deliberately chose their present policy when there was a better alternative?

Mr. Foulkes: Yes, and I am coming to that alternative.
Only a programme of assistance for Vietnam to help to improve the lives of people there will help to encourage them to stay, and encourage those who have already left to return. Those who return will go back to an increasingly more tolerable life, and will send messages to those who remain, thus reinforcing the trend towards voluntary return. [HON. MEMBERS:"It will take years "]
That is a counsel of despair. Our approach is advocated in a letter to The Times last Friday by Chris Bale, Oxfam's Hong Kong director; by Nicholas Hinton, director of the Save the Children Fund, in The Independent; and by Mary Purcell, War on Want's Asia programme officer, also in The Independent. Those three people are committed, long-term officers who, unlike some Conservative Members, know the circumstances of refugees in Hong Kong.
The same course was advocated in the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in 1986, when the refugee problem was much less acute than it is now. If it had been adopted then, it would—as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) rightly said—have given a sense of


hope to the people in Vietnam, and prevented the outflows of the past two years. Our view is also supported in an editorial in The Times on 13 December, which stated that
the economic misery is at the root of the exodus",
and by The Guardian, which said on 14 December that there was an urgent need to do something about the sorry state of Vietnam, which was not so much a tyranny as a devastated economy crying out for help.
If we in the United Kingdom can lead a shift of opinion to restore aid from the European Community and persuade the International Monetary Fund, the Asia Development bank and the World Bank to assist Vietnam again, hope—as the hon. Member for Broxtowe said—will begin to return.

Mr. Tim Devlin: The hon. Gentleman's remarks are very interesting, but as 30,000 to 40,000 people are leaving Vietnam for Hong Kong each year, the programme that he has outlined must be a long-term one, and may take two or three years to be effective. For how many years would he allow this rate of emigration to continue, and what would he do with those who are already in Hong Kong?

Mr. Foulkes: If we had accepted the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report in 1986, we would now be three years further forward. We have to start some time.
One issue on which I can agree with the right hon. Member for Guildford is the appalling hypocrisy of the United States. While rightly opposing forcible repatriation, the United States is unwilling to accept the corollary —the need to bring Vietnam back into the international community. It must cease its vendetta against Vietnam simply because it lost the Vietnam war: it must lift the trade and economic embargo. If the right hon. Member for Guildford thinks that the United States' attitude is humbug—I agree with him—why do not he and his Government lift their embargo? If they do not, they, too, can be accused of humbug.

Ms. Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend will have heard Conservative Members jeering about "taxpayers' money" when he suggested a programme of aid for Vietnam. Does he agree that a House of Commons that can vote £150 million to help victims of the Barlow Clowes affair should consider providing some sort of aid for the people of Vietnam?

Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend makes a valid point.
The United States Government and the French Government have a special responsibility to help in the reconstruction of Vietnam. The West as a whole, led by the United States, has constantly given a clear signal to the people of Vietnam: "Escape from Vietnam, and you will be resettled quickly in the West." That signal has been given for many years now, since the end of the Vietnam war, and to change the light from green to red so suddenly is unfair and inhumane.
It is entirely incorrect to say, as Conservative Members have on previous occasions, that other countries have refused to take Vietnamese refugees. Between 1975 and 1988 the United States took more than 700,000, Canada 121,000, Australia 117,000 and the United Kingdom fewer than 18,000. It is wrong for us to criticise other countries for not taking their fair share.

Mr. George Walden: I am genuinely unable to understand the hon. Gentleman's answer to the point about returning refugees from Hong Kong to China. If he is to carry conviction inside and outside the House, it is essential for the hon. Gentleman to have a clear and consistent policy in relation to the two very similar cases. I still do not see how he can justify turning back refugees: I watched it happen in China when I worked there, and it is not a pretty sight. They do not want to go; they struggle, and women and children are pushed back over the bridge. What is the hon. Gentleman's solution? Will he suggest a programme of economic assistance for the 1 billion Chinese to salve our consciences?

Mr. Foulkes: Before Tiananmen square we were rightly trading and investing in China, but we are not trading and investing in Vietnam; that is one difference. The hon. Gentleman might also make a comparison with East Germany, and ask himself whether he is being consistent. There is, of course, a distinction between individual crossings and the position of families who have been living in the camps for some time, including children who were born there. Assistance for Vietnam is needed to develop schemes for irrigation, reafforestation, transport and agricultural production. Trade liberalisation will help to make life there more tolerable.
Our third anxiety concerns guarantees and the monitoring of returned refugees. I know that the right hon. Member for Guildford and his Committee are rightly concerned about that. We are informed that those who have returned voluntarily have not been ill-treated or persecuted and are beginning to re-integrate. They are sending positive messages back to Hong Kong and that is encouraging more people to volunteer. However, Mr. Thach, the Vietnamese Foreign Minister, reiterated his Government's opposition to forced repatriation in an interview in The Sunday Correspondent last week.
There are no guarantees and as all the agencies that might monitor the return of refugees have refused to monitor the return of those who are forced back, there will be no independent monitoring. The Foreign Secretary said in a letter to hon. Members:
Independent observers will monitor the treatment of those repatriated.
When the Minister replies to the debate, he must tell us who will be responsible for monitoring. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has refused, as has the Save the Children Fund. None of the other voluntary organisations will monitor forced repatriation. Surely the Minister will not suggest the embassy, which consists of only three men who are very good but are certainly not equipped for the job and are certainly not independent. They could not monitor the return of thousands of refugees. The Minister must tell us today who will carry out the monitoring.
The Government's programme is flawed. It is misdirected, heartless, likely to be ineffective and widely opposed. It is opposed by President Bush and the American Congress, Amnesty International and all the other voluntary organisations, the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury. But we know that Conservative Members can dismiss the views of those eminent people.

Mr. Michael Jopling: The hon. Gentleman has done his best to present to the House an alternative policy to that of the Government, and we


have listened very carefully. His entire policy appears to be centred round an aid package for Vietnam. If we are to take him seriously, he must tell us how much money the Opposition would spend on that policy if they were in government.

Mr. Foulkes: I do not have to tell the House immediately—[HON. MEMBERS: "How much?"] Of course I do not. I made the suggestion on 7 September and the Minister said that he was considering my suggestion. I did not suggest only an aid package. I suggested liberalising trade with Vietnam and aid packages from the IMF, the World bank and the Asian Development bank to Vietnam, to bring it back into the international community. Vietnam and Argentina were the only countries against which we operated trade embargoes; now we are liberalising and opening trade with Argentina and excluding Vietham.
Why are the Government pressing ahead despite all the opposition in Britain and throughout the world? It is for a very squalid reason. The Government and people of Hong Kong are pressing three issues. The Government know that they cannot give them what they want on the right of abode. They will not give them what they want and should have in terms of democracy, so they are sacrificing the boat people merely to satisfy one of those three demands. There is no other rational explanation.

Mr. Tony Baldry: Did not the hon. Gentleman hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) explain clearly in opening the debate that unless clear signals are given to people in Vietnam, another tide of boat people will arrive in Hong Kong in the very near future? In the light of those comments, will he withdraw the disgraceful allegations that he has just made?

Mr. Foulkes: They are certainly not disgraceful and I shall certainly not withdraw them. There is no evidence whatsoever that the despicable action already taken by the Government is having the desired effect. So it is proving to be ineffective as well as detestable.
I have given way many times and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to speak, so I shall conclude my speech. I have outlined in detail our proposals for assistance to Vietnam, but I wish to outline a further dimension. On 13 September, the Financial Times stated:
More forcible repatriation can be avoided, but only with international help. The consequences of not resolving this issue next month will be a shameful indictment which will not fall on Britain alone.
Best of all, the Daily Express, which I do not usually quote, stated:
Mr. Hurd should announce an indefinite stay on the repatriation policy while Britain fights in every appropriate body to see that the international community comes up with a solution to what is an international problem.
How can the Government continue when the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) and Lord Ennals are being sent by the Government on a mission to Vietnam in the new year to examine the situation? Is it not a slap in the face for them if forced repatriation continues? How can the Government continue when there are no guarantees on monitoring arrangements and in the face of widespread and mounting opposition?
There is an alternative, and that is to bring some hope to Vietnam and its people—to bring them back fully into the international community and to try repeatedly to

persuade and encourage more boat people to return to some long-term hope. They will return if they have better prospects for a more tolerable life.
Once again, I urge the Government to abandon their plan for further forced deportation. To continue that as the last vote in the House before we adjourn for Christmas would be an inhumane act of boundless folly and I urge the Government to think again.

Mr. Julian Amery: We are dealing with what should be termed an immense human tragedy. It is not a question of right against wrong; it is what all tragedies usually are—a conflict of right against right. I do not altogether dissent from the conclusion drawn by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) when he quoted from the Financial Times and the Daily Express, but I hope he will forgive me for saying that the polemical partisan terms that he used were below the level of events.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: What about Albania?

Mr. Amery: What an absurd intervention. I read in the newspapers that the right hon. Gentleman was suffering from 'flu. I am sorry that it has had such an effect on his cerebral capacity.

Mr. Kaufman: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was delineating various suggestions as absurd —[Interruption] The right hon. Gentleman is a very long-serving Member of the House and early in his political career he will remember recommending the bombing of Albania. That struck me as rather an absurd suggestion.

Mr. Amery: Obviously the 'flu has done its work. I never recommended the bombing of Albania. I have recommended the bombing of other places, including Nazi Germany, but not Albania. Of course the right hon. Gentleman got it wrong.
All I was saying was that the polemical speech by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley is below the level of the serious debate which we should be conducting on such an immense human problem.
First, we should be quite clear that Britain is involved with Vietnam only marginally by historical association. Hong Kong has come into the picture only because we have agreed that it should be a staging post for refugees. So far, it has carried out that role, but there is no question of Hong Kong being asked to bear any burden. If there is a burden, it should be borne by ourselves as the governing power, and by the international community. Obviously, we do not want to put any burden on Hong Kong as a result of this, and if extra personnel were needed, it would be up to us to recruit them.
I hope that the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley will forgive me if I say that to bring Vietnam into the international community is no certain solution. It is all very fine to talk about reforestation, but we are talking about the problems of today and tomorrow. Hope might be given over a decade. Marshall aid took a long time to take effect so the idea that we can cope with the problem of the boat people now through the International Monetary Fund, the World bank or any other organisation is moonshine.

Mr. Foulkes: I also mentioned, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall, irrigation and other more short-term proposals. However, even the long-term proposals are meant not merely to provide immediate solutions, but to give some hope that there is a bright future for people in Vietnam. Surely the right hon. Gentleman agrees that that is one essential element.

Mr. Amery: I was involved in the old Commonwealth development irrigation schemes, and they took years. Dams have to be built and many types of equipment have to be provided. Such schemes will not solve the problem of people who are escaping, some from persecution and some from hunger.
The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley was a little nearer the truth when he talked about economic migrants, although the line between political and economic migrants, is difficult to judge. Were the 5 million Afghan refugees all political migrants? Nobody suggests that they should be sent back. Did the Palestinian refugees escape purely for political reasons? The Ethiopian refugees are escaping from hunger. Is that economic or political? This is a complicated and difficult subject, which should not be dealt with as the hon. Gentleman did by talking about long-term developments.

Dr. David Owen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amery: I shall develop the argument a little. The suggestions of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley might ignite hope, but are the people in north and south Vietnam really scanning newspapers and listening to the radio to see whether there will be a loan? I do not think so.
The coming of the next boat season, to which the Government have drawn attention, is also a problem. The Government have made out a cast-iron, logical case, which I find it difficult, in logical terms, to combat. And yet I cannot bring myself to accept the idea of the forcible repatriation of thousands of people from a British colony. I am not much influenced by international opinion or much afraid of facing up to harsh decisions, yet I find it unacceptable and even obscene to repeat what happened with the repatriation of the Cossacks, or with the Jewish refugees after the war when we blew up ships that tried to take them back to the mandate territory of Palestine. My hon. Friend the Minister would not put it in those terms, but he would think, "OK chum, what do you want to do?"
I have to answer the question of what we should do. I would not like to take the responsibility—nor would I like my hon. friend the Minister to take the responsibility—for denying sanctuary to people who have spent money and run considerable risks to escape from the prison house so that they would then be sent back to it. Vietnam is still a prison house and we make no bones about what we think of it, as we have gone so far as to support an alliance that included the Khmer Rouge because we dislike the Vietnamese Goverment so much.
What can we do? It is not given even to the wisest of us to read the future with any real clarity. The movement of history is sometimes slow and sometimes rapid. We have seen the whole of eastern Europe change overnight, like an avalanche or landslide. It might be wise to postpone the repatriation and to go to the refugee conference, where we could say, "All right, you won't take them, although it is

your duty, but at least cough up some money to make the camps tolerable for the present refugees and, if there is another boating season, for the next lot. Pay up."
The space in Hong Kong is limited, but the New Territories are quite extensive, as my hon. Friend the Minister and I, who have been there, both know. We need not take a decision yet. Many problems in life cannot be solved at a given time. Time may work for us and the position in Vietnam may improve, although some of the developments about which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley spoke will not happen quickly. We do not know whether the fear of what will happen in 1997 will inculcate a greater readiness for repatriation. I do not know, but we should avoid taking decisions now and putting ourselves in the position of denying sanctuary. The answer is to call the conference quickly and to say to the international community, "It is your job to pay. We shall maintain the camps for a year or two longer. If you do not accept that responsibility, on your own head be it."

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I listened with a great deal of interest and care to the impressive speech by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), which will bear careful study. I hope that the Government listened to his remarks as he made an important contribution.
There are some things that it is in a Government's power to do, but which they should decide not to do, not on the grounds of practicality or because there are no alternatives, but simply because such actions are wrong. Although I recognise some of the difficulties of the matter, the Goverment's actions a week ago last Monday were wrong. They were wrong by almost any standard by which one cares to judge them. Even if the policy of mandatory repatriation was right, it was wrong to go about it in that manner. The Government were wrong whatever the sinuous convolutions of facts and truth in which the Minister will, no doubt, get involved later. Even if the policy of mandatory repatriation is ultimately judged to be correct, it is still wrong deliberately to choose women and children to put at the front line of such a contentious policy simply because they will put up less of a struggle.
Whatever the situation and whatever conclusions we reach on this difficult subject, it is still wrong to put in place a screening mechanism that takes administrative decisions that condemn people to return to the tryanny from which they fled in fear of their lives. It is also wrong to put in place appeal tribunals that judge whether or not such administrative decisions are correct and at which the people who are so condemned are forbidden to be present, to have legal representation, to know the reasons why the decisions have been taken against them or to have access to judicial review. As I understand it, this is the first occasion in the history of British justice on which such a judicial review has been denied.
Whatever conclusions are reached about the rightness or otherwise of a policy of mandatory repatriation in difficult circumstances, it is still wrong for a Government to use the techniques of the 3 o'clock knock, to send in riot troops who outnumber those women and children by four to one and to cart those people off to detention against their will.
Last Monday morning I felt the same sense of revulsion at the Government's action and at the way in which they


have carried out their policy that was felt across the nation. That action has rightly caused international condemnation, opprobrium and obloquy to be heaped upon the Government. That action was wrong, and it shamed the Government, the Prime Minister and, ultimately, the nation.
Even if hon. Members do not accept my case that that action was, by any judgment, wrong, I ask them to reflect on what an appalling example we have set for the Chinese Government, who are to take over the care and safe keeping of our subjects after 1997. What if, after 1997, the Chinese state troopers turn up at 3 o'clock in the morning to carry off a British subject against his will and hand him over to a Communist state? How can we complain, since we shall have done it first?

Mr. Walden: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished my point.
What if the case of that British subject is put before an appeal tribunal and he is condemned to detention in a Communist state, and what if that British subject is not entitled to be present, to have legal representation or to know why the decision has gone against him? What if he is not entitled to judicial review? How then will we complain, since we shall have taken such action first?

Mr. Tony Marlow: What difference would our complaint make?

Mr. Ashdown: It seems that the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. I shall give way to him in a moment, after I have given way to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden).
I ask the House to understand that we shall leave behind little enough as it is to protect freedom in Hong Kong. After 1997, probably the only thing that will stand between our subjects and the tyranny that slaughtered its own citizens in Tiananmen square is our system of legal justice, and how terribly we damaged that system last Monday night. What a dreadful legacy we have left to be picked up after 1997. Those who come to abuse their powers—we know that they have the ability and the stomach to do so—will say, "But this was the example that British justice set us." What an appalling example to have set.

Mr. Walden: The right hon. Gentleman has a tendency to talk in moral absolutes, and he must expect to be asked to live up to those absolutes. He has just stressed the iniquities of the mainland Chinese regime. I repeat the question that I put to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). We are returning refugees to a Chinese mainland, run by an iniquitous regime. How does the right hon. Gentleman square his repeated concern for the stability of Hong Kong with a moral argument that could lead only to the non-return of Chinese refugees to Hong Kong and the collapse of Hong Kong in very short order as a result?

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is the central issue to which we who object must address ourselves. I ask him to remember that I have so far concentrated not on the policy—with which I shall now deal—but on the way in which it was implemented. The

hon. Gentleman has asked an important question and I shall seek to answer it. If I do not, I shall be happy to accept another intervention from him.
I listened with interest to the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). I realise that this is an extremely difficult problem to tackle. I accept that it is no good Opposition Members simply standing on the high peak of their self-righteousness, and mouthing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I assure hon. Members that I shall be dealing with the policy itself. It is no good our merely mouthing our outrage. The central question must be whether the Government had an alternative, and I believe that there was, indeed, an alternative, and that it was an effective alternative. It was the international programme for the resettlement of Vietnamese refugees.
The difference between the Chinese refugee who comes over the border and the Vietnamese refugee who arrives in Hong Kong is that, in 1979, we explicitly encouraged refugees to leave Vietnam and we put in place an international resettlement programme aimed at resettling every single one of them—something that we have never done with the illegal immigrants from China. Those Vietnamese who are now flooding into Hong Kong have not understood—rightly or wrongly—that the policy has changed.
The Government must realise that there is no point in their saying that there is no alternative when it was the Government who were, in chief measure, instrumental in destroying that alternative.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that hon. Members will bear with me, as I wish to develop my argument.

Mr. Ian Taylor: rose—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ashdown: If the hon. Lady will forgive me—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the south Vietnamese.

Mr. Ashdown: Oh, I see. The hon. Lady thinks that there is a difference between the south Vietnamese and the north Vietnamese. I am sorry, but I do not recognise that there is a difference. The country is a singular and unitary country. They are all refugees who seek our protection.
As I have said before, in 1985 I may well have been one of the first hon. Members to visit a Vietnamese refugee camp. I told the Government in an Adjournment debate then that unless they fulfilled their obligation under the international resettlement programme, the programme would collapse. The right hon. Member for Guildford criticised the Americans tonight. I ask him to remember that when the programme was in operation to Americans took 25 times as many Vietnamese boat people from Hong Kong as this Government did. They took 49 per cent. of those people, who were our responsibility, whereas the United Kingdom Government took 2.4 per cent. We took fewer than any other participating nation. Even Sweden took twice as many as we did.
It is all very well the Government saying that we had no alternative, but they were the instrument to destroy that alternative. I warned in 1985 that if the Government persisted in failing to carry out their obligations to the


international programme, that programme would collapse, and so it has. In 1980, no fewer than 37,000 people were taken under that programme whereas this year only 6,000 have gone. Since 1980, Britain's contribution has dropped from 6,077 to 101. If the Government had played their part in that international resettlement programme, we would now have in place a system that might begin to tackle the problem—

Mr. Devlin: rose—

Mr. Ian Taylor: rose—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Ashdown: Let me make this point before I give way to allow an intervention or two. It is quite simple. I can understand the reluctance of the international community towards bailing us out at this point when we have so signally failed fully to carry out our responsibilities under the programme previously.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to me. He seems to be living in a different world from the real one. The whole world community has changed the rules on the treatment of refugees since 1979. All refugees who arrived in Hong Kong prior to last June when the screening process, started have been confirmed by the Government as being treated as political refugees, so they will be resettled internationally. Therefore, they will be treated as was previously intended. There was then a public announcement that there would be a screening process, and that screening process is acceptable internationally as the only way to deal with the problem.

Mr. Ashdown: Yes, indeed. The hon. Gentleman has brought me to my next point. The international agreement is now that the screening process should be in place—I accept that—but it also states that we should be giving the maximum input. Last year's agreement, reached at the June 1989 international conference, stated that the first option for a Government is to apply voluntary repatriation and that only after that had been in place and only after the "passage of reasonable time" should alternative measures be put in place, and then only after a proper programme had been established to encourage that process.
I do not believe that either of those two conditions has been fulfilled, and UNHCR takes the same view. A programme of voluntary repatriation that has been running for only six months cannot conceivably be said to have allowed a reasonable intervening passage of time, and nor has there been the education programme for voluntary repatriation to which the June 1989 conference agreed.
However, despite that, it can be argued that voluntary repatriation is achieving much more than most people had predicted, and I admit to the House bluntly that it is achieving more than I had thought it would achieve. Applications are now running at 150 per week. As I understand it, 637 people—let us recognise that that is 10 times as many as the Government have repatriated—have returned to Vietnam voluntarily and another 1,500—

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: rose—

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that I have given way a fair amount. I am trying not to take up too much of the time of the House so that other hon. Members, perhaps even the hon. Lady, can make their own speeches.
About 1,500 people have now registered in that process but—and this is the point to remember—there has already been a significant fall-off in applications for the voluntary repatriation programme since the forced repatriations began. The Government do not have the right to follow through enforced repatriations until, in accordance with the agreement that they made in June this year, they give the voluntary repatriation process some time to develop. That is why UNHCR, Amnesty International and other respected organisations working in this area have refused to agree with the Government's action. They believe that the voluntary repatriation programme can be given a boost and be allowed to expand.
I want to make several points about the need to reform the screening process because, as other hon. Members have said, it is a disgrace. I have with me a letter from a firm of solicitors, Boase and Cohen, which is representing some of the boat people. Perhaps it would be instructive for the House if I read a small passage of it for the record, because the Government must address the points that are made in it. That firm of solicitors writes about its clients:
What we have found is that we are obtaining great difficulties to get access to the camps even to advise our clients as to how they should deal with the questions at the initial review. Indeed, the Immigration Department do not even advise us as to whether our clients have been interviewed or when they are likely to be next interviewed. They also prevent us from attending at the interviews and making representations. Although the UNHCR may be able to monitor the interviews, my firm or any of my representatives are not allowed to be present. It is my experience from seeing the results of the initial interviews that the Immigration Officers dismiss out of hand pleas by my clients that they have been subjected to persecution. Indeed, at one interview, my clients had documentation to show that they had been placed in a Re-education camp but this was dismissed as being untrue.
I do not believe, UNHCR does not believe, and Amnesty International does not believe that the mechanisms by which we have been screening these people for a decision that will return them to the tyranny from which many of them have fled in fear of their lives is adequate. We believe that the wrong decisions are being taken and that many people are being returned who should not be returned and who will be subject to persecution on return.

Mr. Graham: rose—

Mr. Ashdown: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but this must be the last time.

Mr. Graham: Did the right hon. Gentleman see on British television the other night a British television crew wanting to interview some boat people in a camp, but being prevented from speaking to those folk by the guards? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is strange that a country that says that it has a democratically elected Government does not allow ordinary men and women who are suffering the right to speak to British television companies?

Mr. Ashdown: We need no clearer example of the Government's shameful policy than that it had to be carried out in the dead of night and under the blanket of secrecy, so ashamed were they of what they did. The House


continues—[Interruption] Well, it cannot be in the Government's interests to lay down a system in Hong Kong that allows the Government of the day and the state troopers of the day to operate in such a manner. We can defend the rights of people in Hong Kong only if we are prepared to give the example of an open and free democracy, not the example of actions that are more in keeping with those of an east European state a year ago.
I have five brief points about what I believe should be done. I hope that the Government will consider them. First, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley was right when he said that one of the long-term issues that must now be addressed is aid to Vietnam. It is illogical to allow the embargo on aid to Vietnam to continue and it is idiotic that the United States should seek to preserve it. If the Government must act unilaterally to lift that embargo and provide aid, they should do so.
Secondly, it is important that we fulfil the agreement that we made in June 1989 to give time to allow the voluntary repatriation programme to work and that we resource it effectively.
Thirdly, it is important that we return to the forthcoming January conference because perhaps one of the few positive results of this painful and tragic episode is that the international community is now alerted to the problem. The right hon. Member for Guildford is correct that the Americans' condemnation of our action gives us a unique leverage so that we can turn round and say to them arid others, "Right, you must put your actions where your words have been and put into place an international resettlement programme." However, the Government must play a part in such a programme, and not leave others to carry the major burden.
Fourthly, as is now suggested by some at UNHCR in Hong Kong, it is important that we now consider the possibilities of converting Tai Au Chau, which is an uninhabited island in Hong Kong, into either a permanent or temporary resting place for the Vietnamese boat people for the period until the problem can be solved. The Minister is shaking his head. If he wishes to intervene, I shall of course give way to him, but I should like to make one point before he does. We know from Hong Kong—I am sure that the Minister knows also—that there is a shortage of labour there at present. There is also a massive shortage of labour in Singapore, which is seeking to buy in labourers from Hong Kong. I do not believe that this proposal is impossible and to those Conservative Members who believe that it is impossible, let me just say that the opinion of many at UNHCR is that something can be done along those lines.
Fifthly and lastly—

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a three-hour debate and this rubbish has been going on for 22 minutes. Could you bring it to an end?

Mr. Ashdown: I shall ignore that comment since much of my time has been taken up answering interventions from Conservative Members. If I had not done that, my speech would have been significantly shorter.
I hope that my fifth point will answer the right hon. Member for Guildford. There is a case for saying that we must do something that will stop the post-monsoon influx of arrivals in Hong Kong. Sending back 50, 150 or 250 people will not do that. We should use the intervening three or four months to put in place an effective, efficient

and fast screening mechanism which would prevent people from being put in camps for several months and would effectively allow a decision to be taken on their future on the spot. In other words, we should treat them on exactly the same basis as we treat the Chinese illegal immigrants.
If in the next three months that screening process were properly resourced with an appeals mechanism that respected civil liberties, and if the Vietnamese Government were asked properly to propagandise that fact, we would be able to tackle the problem in a way that did not bring shame and condemnation on the Government or set such an appalling example for the Chinese Government who are to follow us in 1997. The alternative, as I have outlined it, would tackle the problem at its roots in the long term and in the short term without shaming Britain's reputation and infringing the civil liberties of a few helpless people whose only sin has been to seek freedom under our protection.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: In the past week, Hong Kong has moved centre stage and the eyes of the critical world are focused on the policies to be adopted by the British Government on two major immigration issues: will we repatriate further Vietnamese boat people, and how many insurance policies are we prepared to give to Hong Kong residents in the run-up to 1997 to stem the brain drain?
Given the little time that we have, to deal with the second issue would be wrong. Suffice it to say that major concessions to Hong Kong residents could seriously misfire and it would be the likes of my constituents who would yet again bear the brunt of our well-intentioned decision.
The extent of the humbug and hypocrisy that I have heard in recent weeks has made my blood boil and has prompted me to speak out tonight. It started particularly for me when I watched the events of Camp David, when Mr. Bush lectured my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That was followed by one international attack after another, culminating in the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury joining in. What they all have in common is that they have no solution, no offer of help, and, like those Opposition Members we have heard tonight, no policy.
I had hoped to hear constructive solutions tonight, but I have heard only a lot of idealistic fantasy. I have heard no way of solving the prolonged crisis that mounts by the day in Hong Kong while Opposition Members procrastinate. There are 56,000 Vietnamese boat people living in artificial homes. Some have been there for years on end, jammed into crowded and often insanitary detention centres. In two months, they face the prospect of being joined by a further 1,000 a week. The problem has grown out of all proportion and has been too long ignored. Hong Kong just cannot cope.
Those of us who have been to Hong Kong will have seen the living conditions there. There are 13,000 people to every square mile. For how long do we let people go on living in misery in the hope of getting out of the camps? For how long do we tempt further Vietnamese to come in search of the brave new western world? Is that what our critics call compassion?
I shall stick my neck out and congratulate the Government on taking control of an intolerable situation. That is a reflection of the strong leadership for which the


Government are respected and renowned. The British people will stand behind us. To run away from the mounting crisis, as the Opposition parties would have us do, and be ruled by sentiment and emotions that we have heard tonight, would be irresponsible. Tempting as that might be, our hearts cannot rule our heads.

Mr. Jim Lester: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mrs. Hicks: I will keep going, because of the shortage of time.
Constituents in inner cities such as Wolverhampton, which I represent, have long lived with the repercussions of an open-door immigration policy, advocated by many Opposition Members. The residents in the leafy glades of Yeovil have not. Too often I have listened to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who would not listen to me tonight, pontificating on the need for the Government to be generous, and I listened to him tonight savagely attacking the Government's actions. But for how much of his time has he had to live with the tensions of inner-city life? Has he ever had to watch immigrants arrive in a community, often small and overcrowded, and endeavour to integrate, competing for jobs, housing and schools with locals who were born and bred in the area? It is all too easy to preach as long as the problem is not in one's own backyard.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Hicks: The Labour party has no policy, but it will be quick to label me racist. But I am dealing with the realities of 57,000 people. I am not a racist; I am a realist. I have to consider the effect of any more immigrants on people of all colours and creeds whom I represent. Opposition Members say, "Let's be nice to everyone. Let them all in and to hell with the consequences." But they will blame the Government for the consequences. Opposition Members parade the plight of the homeless in one breath, then say hello to everybody in the next.
Little England is creaking at the seams, and we have our own problem of overpopulation.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Hicks: Time prevents me from giving way.
We have 232 people per square mile. But in the past week we have heard vociferous criticism from Canada and Australia. Canada has about 2.5 people per square mile and Australia has only 20 people per square mile. America, the most vociferous critic, and a country that I usually love and respect, has 25 people per square mile. Yet those countries lecture us. They preach one thing and practise another.
We have been condemned for returning 51 people, while Mr. Bush contemplates returning 42,000 Chinese students. What future can they expect after Tiananmen square? What about the forcible repatriation of immigrants from Haiti and Mexico? They are regularly returned. America, with its experience, should be able to give us help. As we have heard tonight, 50 people are daily turned back from Hong Kong at the Chinese border, and they have no right of appeal. Others seem to be able to do

what they like with their illegal immigrants, but if we follow suit we are labelled heartless and there is an enormous outcry.
The Government, having taken a sad but honest decision, must guarantee that the Vietnamese boat people will be treated with dignity, and that physical force is never used against them. Boat people facing the prospect of repatriation must have their fears addressed and be reassured that their return to Vietnam will be peaceful and scrupulously monitored. Two embassy staff and three parliamentarians may be sufficient for the task of monitoring 51 refugees, but in the case of greater numbers, other agencies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees must take responsibility in a concerted international effort to help the refugees re-adapt to Vietnamese life—living, as they will, in the knowledge that their dreams of life in the West have been dashed. Others in Vietnam must learn from their harsh experience and realise that it is not worth leaving home, because they will be returned.
The one plea that I make to my hon. Friend the Minister concerns orphan children held in the camps. There are conflicting figures, but I understand that as many as one third of them can be positively identified as orphans. To subject them to further insecurity by returning them to Vietnam now, while they are still young, would be tragic. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will make every effort, in conjunction with every possible agency, to arrange for the adoption of those orphans by Vietnamese families already settled in the West.
We have enough experience to know that to continue talking around the problem, to live in hope of other countries offering help, or to hold the unrealistic belief that voluntary repatriation will ever solve the problem is misguided. I ask the right hon. Member for Yeovil how long it will take voluntarily to repatriate 57,000 people. That is the size of the problem. While 600 refugees were voluntarily repatriated over the past three months, over the same period, another 3,000 boat people arrived in Hong Kong. The vicious circle continues.
To avoid taking an unpopular decision now is just to avoid the inevitable. It would nurture false hopes in the Hong Kong camps and in Vietnam, and would simply put off the problem until another fearful day. The Government will be respected for taking the decision that they have. They had no alternative but to take action now, and I support their resilience in ignoring the wrath of hypocrites.

Mr. Peter Shore: The opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), the Chairman of the Select Committee, were couched in proper terms. He presented fairly not only the report but the different shades and nuances of opinion expressed by its members. He was right to say that, however the Government's decision may be judged, it was an agonising decision—and one that no Government, of whatever party, could take except after the deepest reflection and considerable anguish of thought.
I share the repugnance of all those, including the majority of right hon. and hon. Members, who blench at the very thought, let alone the sight, of men, women and children being bundled on to ships or into planes en route for compulsory repatriation in Vietnam. Not one person of any decency of feeling does not share that repugnance.


Therefore, if voluntary repatriation could work, it is infinitely to be preferred, because it avoids a horrible dilemma and the decision that would otherwise have to be taken.
Hon. Members have mentioned international action to relieve Hong Kong of the burden of the 57,000 Vietnamese refugees. That is a wonderful prospect, but the plain fact is that no international solution exists. There is a distinction between present circumstances and those of a decade ago which the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) keeps describing. Under the 1979 convention, there was an international commitment to accept from South Vietnam people who were overwhelmingly political refugees, who had backed the Americans, and who were deeply implicated in years of horrible war. That is how the 1979 commitment arose and why it was honoured by the international community.
The current position is very different, as anyone who reads the Committee's report will learn. Today's refugees are not fleeing from the taint of American collaboration in South Vietnam. Rather, they are peasants, farmers and fishermen fleeing from North Vietnam, where there is no serious evidence of their political disagreement with the rulers of that country. It is a different sort of exodus.
The root of today's problem is entirely different. Whereas those who fled from South Vietnam risked all the savagery of attacks by pirates and others off the Malaysian and Thai coasts, the refugees leaving North Vietnam put into the Chinese coast two or three times in order to revictual, so that they could be assured of reaching sanctuary in Hong Kong. If we do not begin to recognise that central difference, we shall not begin to get the argument right.
Of course we want to reach a solution other than compulsory repatriation, but time is running out very fast. We have between six and eight weeks to mobilise international opinion—if it can be mobilised after the tremendous upheaval in world opinion and disturbance that greeted Britain's initial actions. If the Americans really felt the same outrage about North Vietnamese peasants that they felt about South Vietnamese collaborators, they would be as generous now as they were when they absorbed 700,000 South Vietnamese into their country a few years ago. The same applies to the rest of the international community. It has the chance to act now.
The Government have imposed a moratorium on movement, and it should be allowed to remain in force for up to six weeks. I say that because, in six to eight weeks, the next movement of boat people will begin. That movement is seasonal and depends on the winds and the weather. The North Vietnamese will start flowing out of their country again at the rate, some suggest, of 1,000 per week. The figure could be much higher. Their hope will be that, however temporarily inconvenienced they might be on their arrival in Hong Kong, the glittering promise of life in rich America, Canada or elsewhere, will stretch before them. There will be no cessation of the outflow, and that is why there must be no more than a few weeks' respite from making what will be a most painful and difficult decision.
There are 57,000 Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong, whose own population is around 5.5 million to 6 million. If one expresses those refugees as a percentage of the British population, they are equivalent to 570,000 people arriving at the south coast of Britain in a single year, mainly because they were looking for a better form of life.

How would we react to such a development? How would we face the prospect of those 570,000 people being followed by another 400,000 to 500,000 the year after? We must face the realities of sentiment in Hong Kong.
No one, with the possible exception of the right hon. Member for Yeovil, has suggested that it will be possible for Hong Kong to absorb another huge exodus of people from Vietnam.

Mr. Ashdown: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to intervene? He has misrepresented my comments.

Mr. Shore: I did not mean to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ashdown: Unlike the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I made it clear that I should like refugees to be effectively screened and dealt with on the same basis as the unofficial illegal refugees from China, beginning with the next post-monsoon influx.

Mr. Shore: I am talking about how we could cope with another massive exodus. The right hon. Member for Yeovil suggested that an island might be used, but I doubt very much whether the physical space and facilities would be available for another such mass exodus. Even Mr. Hugo Young, whose conscience is as tender as that of any hon. Member, when writing in The Guardian about a week ago, had to try to draw a line between those who are already there and those who are yet to come. However much he accepted the case of those who were already there, he could not say, in all honesty, that one could do other than close the door to those who have yet to come.

Mr. Ashdown: That is precisely the line that I have just drawn.

Mr. Shore: But it is not a satisfactory line to draw, because the essence of the matter is that we have a deep moral obligation to give refuge to political refugees. Our duty lies with those who have a real apprehension of persecution and worse if they are sent back. The right hon. Member for Yeovil suggests that we should not even allow the next wave of people to be screened to discover who are genuine refugees, who are afraid of political persecution, and the rest who are looking for—

Mr. Ashdown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It cannot be in order for a right hon. Gentleman so wholly and disgracefully to misrepresent the speech that I gave—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. That is a matter for debate.

Mr. Shore: I should not wish to misrepresent the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) has done so twice.

Mr. Shore: If I have, I apologise, but no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have a further opportunity to set the record straight.
If there is not the space and facilities to accommodate the next 40,000 people from Vietnam, how can they be screened so that we can find out wo are genuine refugees and who are economic migrants? That is the essential physical problem. The right hon. Member for Yeovil should have to create space now to carry on the proper


screening process which he said he wants in the years to come. If I am still misrepresenting the right hon. Gentleman, I apologise, but I hope that I have made my point clear to him.
It is essential that we carry the distinction in our minds between political refugees and economic migrants. It is one thing to be sent back to a totalitarian regime to face prison, torture—as is often the case—appalling ill treatment, cruelty and persecution, but it is very different, although not necessarily very pleasant, to be sent back to conditions of economic hardship and squalor. If we cannot make that distinction, we shall not begin to get the issue right.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Is he aware that three years ago the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I was a member with the hon. Members for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), recommended that when Vietnam withdraws from Cambodia the Government should contemplate some form of economic assistance? As that withdrawal is almost complete, and in view of the moral obligation of the United States to the economy of a country whose Government are evolving in a direction that we all understand, is there not an obligation on the United States and Britain to meet the Government of Vietnam to see whether those economic conditions can be ameliorated to get to the root of the problem?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is right. I see no reason why there should be any serious contention between hon. Members, particularly now that the great political problem of Vietnam invading and holding Kampuchea has been resolved, on resuming substantial aid to the war-shattered Vietnamese economy. It needs help, and we should now be prepared to give it. We and the Americans should have started that process some years ago.
Of course I understand the need for the most rigorous examination of the credentials of those who apply for refugee status. If we are not examining them properly and adequately under the supervision of the United Nations, we must put that right until we get general agreement that our method of sorting the two categories is as fair as possible.
We should be as generous as we can, and immediately, in giving cash aid not only directly to the economic migrants who are returning, but to the Vietnamese authorities who will cater for them and offer them accommodation and employment.
We should ensure that the mission of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Ennals and the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is carried out seriously and not just cosmetically, and that they have sufficient support staff in Vietnam to do a thorough job.

Sir Philip Goodhart: As usual, the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) made a courageous, sensible and eloquent speech.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was also courageous and clear and has been consistent over the past few months on the issue, but the sad fact that we must face is that, if there were free movement for the people of

Vietnam, the number who would like to come to Britain over the next 12 months would perhaps be 10 times the size of the population of Yeovil.
The root of the Government's problem is that every sensible inhabitant of Vietnam would like to leave and move to the West. That is not necessarily an absurd idea, because over the past 15 years more than I million Vietnamese have moved to the West, mostly to the United States. Last year, incredible though it may seem, the money sent back by Vietnamese in the United States to Vietnam exceeded the hard currency earnings of its entire manufacturing industry.
Some boat people have taken to the boats because of a fear of political persecution, and some have done so because of the actuality of grinding poverty. There are some signs that that poverty may be easing.
This summer, thanks to the Foreign Office, I met the Foreign Minister of Vietnam in London. He is a veteran Communist who, I am told, organised the great Tet offensive in 1968. When I met him it sounded as though he was seeking to be chairman of our Back-Bench finance committee. He told me that the economic problems of Vietnam had largely been caused by centralised planning, and that it would be able to cure its raging inflation with market forces. There are some signs that what he said is coming to pass, because visitors to Saigon and Hanoi speak of a renewed commercial vigour in Vietnam. There is also some hope that poverty will be relieved because of the run down of the vast Vietnamese military machine.
It is absurd that, 15 years after the departure of the Americans and 10 years after the Vietnamese army defeated the Chinese in a sharp, brisk, border war, Vietnam should still have the fifth largest army in the world, which absorbs about 20 per cent. of the GNP of that desperately poor country. Over the past 40 years, the Vietnamese army has defeated the French, partially defeated the Americans, conquered the south and seen off the massive Chinese army but, sadly, its greatest victory has been over the economy of its own country. The size of the military establishment has shattered the Vietnamese economy. It is absurd to talk of aid as the solution to the problem when 20 per cent. of the Vietnamese GNP goes on entirely unnecessary military expenditure.
What can we do in the short term? Clearly, it will take a long time to relieve the poverty. First, we should look at the interrogation system in force in the camps. When I was in Hong Kong in April, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees representative was unhappy about the screening process. Amnesty International and less liberal lawyers are unhappy about it. It is up to us and the British Government to ensure that the screening process is seen to be fair and thorough.
Secondly, we should accept greater responsibility for the camps in Hong Kong. The living conditions in some of them are disgraceful. We cannot ask the people of Hong Kong to contribute more. Admittedly, we have made millions of pounds available, but we should accept responsibility for the administration of the camps together with the Hong Kong Administration and assistance for the boat people in Hong Kong should have higher priority in the ODA budget.
Thirdly, we should take up the offer made by the Philippine Government at the boat people's conference at Geneva in June, when they offered to take political refugees into a transit camp in a town near Manila until they could be found homes. We should have grasped that


opportunity, which would have relieved the pressure on Hong Kong. Sadly, little seems to have happened. When I checked with the Philippine embassy a few days ago, we seemed to be no further forward.
Fourthly, together with the United States of America we should seek havens for the boat people outside the western welfare system. We should consider Mexico. Much has been said about the Americans returning immigrants froom Mexico, and they have returned a few, but one must he drunk, drugged to the eyeballs or crippled to be caught by the American immigration forces. Millions of legal and illegal immigrants have flooded across from Mexico into the United States. At the same time, the Mexicans owe a vast debt to the United States and recycling it is a constant problem. It is not beyond the realms of possibility to arrange with the Mexican Government for a few thousands or even tens of thousands of the boat people to be resettled in the southern part of Mexico. That is in the long term.
What about tonight? I am in some difficulties. I appreciate the Government's problems, but in the 1960s I went frequently to Vietnam. I had many Vietnamese friends in the army and the Administration who are now either scattered or dead. I cannot with a good conscience support a policy of repatriation of their friends and families, so I fear that I cannot support the Government. I hope that we can find an alternative, on which we can look back with a little less shame than our present policy.

Mr. David Young: Part of the difficulty over the boat people has arisen because we in the West have dealt with Vietnam as an economic leper over the years, denying it both aid and trade. The problem has been compounded because until comparatively recently all those who came were accepted as refugees. In Hong Kong we have built up a large camp society. Tonight I shall consider how that problem has been dealt with and, most of all, condemn the means of forcible repatriation which, to say the least, is unBritish. I doubt if anybody would have accepted that solution if the people being deported were white, not coloured. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is disgraceful."] Deportation in this means is disgraceful.
We saw on our television screens how 51 people were deported. They were taken from their former camps and isolated in a group. The group was made up of 17 women, 26 children and eight men. They were awoken at dead of night by a thump on the door. Gazing out of the windows they saw the lights reflected off the riot squad helmets and equipment. Would hon. Members not have been intimidated? If that was not repatriation by force, it was repatriation by intimidation. Some 200 police stood outside waiting for them.
I know that the Secretary of State is an honourable man. The Government are all honourable men and women. What instructions were given to the police? I assume that they were not there to convey the seasonal greetings of the Foreign Office. What instructions were given if there was resistance? Is there any truth in the allegation that karate was used to persuade people to get on the aircraft? If it was an honourable exercise, why was it done in such a clandestine way, at dead of night, with little attempt to bring in official observers or the media? Something here does not bear the scrutiny of day, like

most clandestine operations, and, in a free and democratic society, we require an explanation of that from the Minister.
The Government's argument is that those people are economic refugees, and therefore we must vet them. What form does the vetting take? It has been condemned by Amnesty International, and although the United Nations Organisation may have been asked for advice, it was not consulted, and has not given its stamp of approval to the methods that are being used.
During the first screening, there is no access to advice or legal representation of any kind. Is it not also true that the immigration officers who carry out the screening find it an unpopular duty? Is it not true that they do not write up their notes after the completion of one interview, but record them from memory, days or weeks later, after many more interviews? Is that a legally just procedure for a country with a reputation like ours to adopt?
When people appeal, is it not true that the appeal can be made only by written application? No legal or other representation is allowed, and the defendant—if I may use the term—is not allowed to appear at a tribunal that has the power to deport him or to keep him.
Will the Minister account for the fact that twice the number of people are granted refugee status after going to appeal when they first come before the first interview? Does that not show that it is not the appeals procedure that is fair, but the initial interviews that are biased, incompetent and inadequate for the type of cases that come before them?
Is it not also true that people's minds are conditioned, to compliance because they know that the people who run the camps—often the police—are responsible for their deportation? Is it not true that there have been complaints about police activity in raids in camps, which have resulted in the Hong Kong magistrates carrying out investigations? As a result of the investigations, and in spite of a condemning report, no action has been taken against those who acted against the people in the camps.
All those issues bear close investigation, as does the monitoring of what happens to people who return to Vietnam. If the Government are not moved by international concern from the Church at home and abroad, and from people with whom we are claimed to have a special relationship, at least Hanoi seems to be moved. If people who have been deported by the Government arrive in Hanoi and claim to have been deported involuntarily, the Hanoi Government have said that they will be returned. What will the Government's stance be on that?
Is the Secretary of State going to make a statement tomorrow that will allow some 200,000 Hong Kong economic refugees into Britain? How does he reconcile a policy of pulling in one group of Hong Kong citizens, into Britain and presumably leaving the rest of them to the tender mercies of the Chinese People's Army, with his policy of refusing asylum to people from Vietnam?
I know that it is a difficult and complex problem. If the Government argue that their actions are in accordance with the traditions of British empire I am not surprised that the sun never set on that empire, because not even God would trust it in the dark.

Mr. Michael Jopling: I share with many right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate concern, anxiety and horror about the misery and privation that so many Vietnamese boat people suffered during their journey to Hong Kong, and the conditions in which they live there.
In 1983, I was on a police launch in Hong Kong when we rescued one of those boats. I saw the utmost squalor. There were open fires burning on the deck and it was one of the most primitive sights that I have ever seen.
I also saw the boat people in April this year, when I visited one of the camps in Kowloon with the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. But despite that background, I cannot see any alternative for the Government but to take the steps that they are taking to return boat people compulsorily whence they came.
I have listened to every moment of the debate but, with the best will in the world, I cannot for the life of me understand why illegal immigrants into Hong Kong from Vietnam are different from other illegal immigrants in other countries. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) sought to give some sort of explanation. He said something about the boat people being settled in camps, but they are not. They are not settled anywhere. They are held in camps preparatory to something being done with them. They have been there for some time, but it seems to me that that does not make them any different from the illegal immigrants in other countries whom we have discussed.

Mr. Foulkes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that for the past 15 years the West has had a programme of encouraging Vietnamese people to leave the country and settle in the West? That programme and expectation did not exist for the Chinese people, and that must be one factor that makes the boat people different.

Mr. Jopling: That issue was covered a little while ago. For many years it has been the policy to help people who had been of assistance to the Americans during the Vietnam war. That is a totally different issue.
No one in the House tonight has adequately explained why the boat people are different from the Mexicans or the Haitians who enter the United States, or the Chinese who enter Hong Kong illegally.

Mr. Lester: The reason is that for the past 10 years Vietnam is the only country which, for whatever reasons, has had economic sanctions taken against it when it already had a poor economy. That has made its people among the poorest in the world.

Mr. Jopling: That is not enough to justify these people being regarded as different from the others. If it is right to return illegal immigrants from Haiti, Mexico or China, I cannot see why those from Vietnam should not be treated in much the same way. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) said that they should have some sort of judicial review. I have not heard him or any other Opposition Member say during the past few years that judicial reviews should be used by illegal Chinese immigrants to Hong Kong or even by people who come to Heathrow airport who are turned back if they have come illegally.
I hope that the Government will press on as soon as possible with the policy that they began last week, and

send as many as possible of these illegal immigrants back home. I was hugely impressed by the speech of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), and I agreed with much of what he said. The message that he gave the House was about the urgency of the problem. The House ignores that urgency at its peril.
When my hon. Friend the Minister appeared before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee last week, he told us—I was not there, but he told the Committee—that, at the present rate, it would take two years to screen all the illegal Vietnamese immigrants to Hong Kong. Two years just will not do. The Government must ensure that more people are engaged, so that screening can be conducted a good deal more quickly. It must be completed in far less than two years.
I believe that the screening process is fair and reasonable. As my hon. Friend told the Select Committee last week, the scheme
was devised in conjunction with the UNHCR who have unmatched experience.
It is essential that the Government continually make it clear to the world and to the British people that the rules agreed with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are being closely followed.
The more successful we are at finding somewhere for these immigrants to go, the more others will be tempted to make the journey to Hong Kong. The House must ask itself a simple question. When we are faced with the proposition of giving the right of abode in Britain to an indeterminate number, so far, of citizens of Hong Kong, would we prefer to provide the right of abode for Hong Kong British dependent territory citizens who are fearful of the Chinese takeover in 1997 or to give such opportunities to illegal entrants, who are not refugees, from Vietnam? If we have space here, I would rather give it to the British dependent territory citizens of Hong Kong than to illegal entrants from Vietnam.

Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. The purpose of giving the right of abode here to the people of Hong Kong is to encourage them to stay in Hong Kong to keep the colony prosperous. The right hon. Gentleman seems to assume that they will all come to the United Kingdom. He had better get his argument straight.

Mr. Jopling: I understand that that is the case. The hon. Gentleman is correct, but however many passports or rights of abode we give to Hong Kong people, they may not come at once. It may be intended that they will not come at once, but the House should not forget that they could come at some time, and in huge numbers. The right hon. Member for Yeovil is one of those who say that we should give the right of abode to everybody in Hong Kong. I hope that, when he argues that in future, he will stop talking about 3.25 million people coming, as paragraph 410 of the Select Committee report makes it clear that we are talking about 5.25 million people. It should be understood in the country that the policy being pushed by the right hon. Member for Yeovil means that there would be an opportunity for rather more than 8,000 people to come to every constituency in Britain. That is what the figures break down to. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has not thought about that before, but it is the truth.

Mr. Ashdown: I wonder whether the right hon. Member heard the speech of the Minister of State at the weekend when he said that the more passports are issued, the less chance there is of their being used. That is the point.

Mr. Jopling: I did not have the advantage of hearing what my hon. Friend said. I should be surprised if the number of passports that are issued had any effect on what the Select Committee described as the Armageddon scenario—that which would cause a huge number of those people to come here.

Mr. Michael Shersby: Heathrow airport is adjacent to my constituency. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the prospect that he has just outlined causes deep anxiety to my constituents and many other people in west London?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend is right to make that point, and I hope that he will make it often when we debate that issue.

Mr. Ashdown: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the statement made by the Leader of the House when he was Foreign Secretary. He said that if the Armageddon scenario arose, Britain would have to accept responsibility for all of them. The difference between the Government's stance and mine is quite simply that we would accept these people as full citizens capable of investing in Britain beforehand whereas the Government would accept them under the Armageddon scenario as penniless refugees—as the Vietnamese boat people writ large.

Mr. Jopling: I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that on the radio this morning. My wife wondered why I exploded when I heard it. I was present last July when my right hon. and learned Friend the former Foreign Secretary told the Select Committee that, if the Armageddon scenario came about, the international community would have to take a responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman has twisted that to say that Britain should bear the responsibility. My right hon. and learned Friend was very clear about that.
What should the Government do? Above all, they should concentrate on doing everything possible to stem the flow of illegal entrants from the south. How should they do it? First, they should use every opportunity to obtain better co-operation from the Chinese. I understand only too well how difficult relations have become with the People's Republic of China since the massacre in Tiananamen square earlier this year, just after the Select Committee was in Hong Kong.
It is intolerable that the Chinese should support boats that port-hop up the coast. It is even more intolerable that a number of these illegal immigrants come overland by bus to the Pearl river estuary and take the short hop by water to Hong Kong. Despite the difficulties, we must do everything that we can to persuade the Chinese not to support and encourage those people.
Secondly, the Government must try to do more to help and encourage voluntary repatriation to Vietnam. Evidence was given to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that those who are voluntarily repatriated to Vietnam are given a greater cash incentive than those who are compulsorily returned. We should increase the cash incentive given to those who go voluntarily. I hope that the compulsory repatriation scheme will be restarted properly

and that it gets going as soon as possible. As more and more people are compulsorily returned to Vietnam and it is seen in the camps that the rest of them will inevitably be returned in the immediate future, I hope—

Mr. Rupert Allason: rose—

Mr. Jopling: I shall just finish my sentence. If there is then seen to be a greater cash incentive to go voluntarily, there may be a considerable increase in illegal immigrants prepared to return to Vietnam voluntarily.

Mr. Allason: If my right hon. Friend is advocating an increase in the existing money given to each returnee—which is about $620—rather than to the North Vietnamese authorities, that will have the reverse effect and be entirely counter-productive. It will encourage more people to make the journey, because $620 is an enormous amount of money to such people. If we increase the money and give it directly to the people, we shall increase the numbers.

Mr. Jopling: It costs a vast amount of money for them to go there in the first place. There is a huge extortion racket among those who provide the travel to Hong Kong. We should have to keep the matter in perspective to ensure that the policy does not have a counter-effect. We have some leeway to encourage voluntary repatriation.

Mr. Maude: In case there is any misunderstanding, I shall clear up the point. The vast bulk of the money given as part of the reintegration package goes not to the individuals or families, but the communities to assist the reintegration. Only a small part of it goes into the pockets of the families involved.

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for explaining that. I hope that he will consider my point.
I hope that the Government will be firm and will press on with the compulsory repatriation scheme as soon as possible, increase the pace of screening and tell the United States that this House regards the attitude of the United States Government as hypocritical and unreasonable. The Government should realise that a by-product of that firmness is that it will be a good way of demonstrating to Hong Kong that Britain still cares deeply about the problems in Hong Kong and recognises that the Vietnamese boat people are only one of those problems.
Action must be taken at once. Tonight's debate has dismayed me because the opposition to the Government's policy has been confined to hon. Members wringing their hands and expressing horror at making people who are in an illegal position do what they do not want to do. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley has, frankly, given a woolly series of uncosted, long-term hopes that do not take account of the urgency to which the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney drew our attention.
One factor that unites the critics—whether the official Opposition, the Archbishop of Canterbury or all those in between—is the demand to continue dithering. Those policies are recipes for uncertainty. The critics would command much more respect if they could provide a sensible, workable alternative that addressed itself to the serious urgency of the problem—something that the House should never forget.

Mr. Thomas Graham: It does not seem that long ago that I remember the press in England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales proclaiming to the nation that we were a haven for the boat people, and the Prime Minister welcomed with open arms the Vietnamese people who were racing from the embrace of Communism and a dictatorial society.
Britain was like an oasis, a shining star in the West. What could be more appropriate in the month of December, than the Prime Minister saying that we were a shining star in the West? We did not need three wise men; we had the Prime Minister, Reagan and a number of others saying, "Get out of Vietnam. Come to our land and we will put you in a home."
I remember the local authorities in Great Britain responding and I am delighted that they did so. In my constituency, they responded by giving homes to people from Vietnam.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the position was entirely different? The South Vietnamese had fought a bitter struggle with the Americans and, in return, the Americans gave them refuge in their country for the services rendered in that war.

Mr. Graham: I admit that things have changed, not for the better but for the worse. Like a spider's web, we have enticed many people from Vietnam. The Prime Minister has encouraged people to desert Vietnam in droves. They came to Hong Kong expecting to get shelter, aid and support to come to the West.
Some things have changed because there has been an election for a successor to Ronald Reagan, but there has been no general election for our Prime Minister. A spider's web has been set and the people of Vietnam have left their country because they thought that they could get aid, support and security in the West. Our Prime Minister has disgracefully led those people up the path and is now sending them back to a terrible and incredibly uncertain future.
I have recently read many articles about people whom this country sent back to face Stalin. No hon. Member would suggest that it was right to send back to Russia people who, it has now been conclusively proved, were executed in their millions by Joseph Stalin.
Surely conservative Members are not so naive that they see nothing wrong in sending back Vietnamese refugees to face that uncertainty. Surely they are aware of the anxiety that they feel. For years the Tory party has claimed that it is the scourge of the Communist party. Hanoi Radio recently told the western world that Vietnam is now incarcerating people because it wants to re-educate them and bring them into the fold. We do not know how long that will continue. I do not know whether it is even true or false, but Hanoi Radio has said that certain people are being taken in—

Mr. David Alton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Refugee Action estimates that 500,000 people are detained in the 150 re-education centres in Vietnam including 200 Catholic priests, 30 Protestant ministers and 3,000 Buddhists? That bears out what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mr. Graham: I am delighted with that clarification and sad that many people find themselves incarcerated in Vietnam.
The Government are wrong to repatriate by force. I use the word "force" deliberately. Even the Evening Standard clearly states that Vietnamese people are being repatriated by force. The police come to them, armed to the teeth, in the middle of the night. What do I mean by armed to the teeth? They do not need to have guns or other weapons, they just need to be strong and fit and able to throw a bloke. If somebody in Glasgow were stronger than me and he twists my arm up my back, that would be by strength and arms. Many refugees are being forcibly repatriated by the power and strength of the police. They are being forced on to planes. If any hon. Member wishes to contradict me, I shall be happy to show him that it is true.
The Evening Standard has never been famous for supporting the Opposition; it usually supports the Government. One woman—a wife—told her story. She said:
I suddenly felt something bad was going on and something was going to happen. I saw riot police carrying truncheons and shields. They beamed their flashlights at everybody and surrounded the bed. We were told that 21 people from the hut were to be moved immediately to another camp and we had one minute to collect our things.
Is that what this country is now about—threatening men and women in the middle of the night? Do we use truncheons and searchlights to bully people? This newspaper is not Labour Weekly, Tribune or The Times. I am quoting from the front page of the Evening Standard, a well-known supporter of the Government.
Britain faces international revulsion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) is laughing. Would he want to be a refugee in one of those camps tonight, not knowing whether the police would arrive in large numbers with batons and searchlights to drag him away? Would he smile if his family had to face that tonight?
The position is appalling, and Britain faces international revulsion. My late father served for nine years as a Royal Navy service man. He was fully involved in the war. He said to me, "Thomas, son, there is one thing that we pride ourselves on in Britain, and that is being a democratic nation. The other thing that we pride ourselves on is sheltering people who suffer prejudice from other nations." We must, as a nation, support international brotherhood and womanhood.
The Government are betraying in principle the whole morality of refugee status. They are betraying the principle of the United Nations. We must do something to restore Britain, in the eyes of the world, as a free nation committed to democracy and to the right to life. One hon. Member earlier made a nonsensical statement about the United Nations. I thought that this Government had the most absolutely special relationship with America. I thought that the American Government would understand the difficulties faced by the British Government.
We must remember the Vietnamese conflict, the involvement of America in that conflict and the billions of pounds that it spent to keep that tragic war going while millions of people died. I thought that Britain had a special relationship with America that allowed us to discuss the problems of the Vietnamese refugees and the boat people, yet we are told by Conservative Members that it is all to no avail. Despite all its sins during the Vietnamese war, America has told the Prime Minister to get stuffed. It will


do nothing. It says, "Leave the refugees to languish in the mud. You deal with the problem." That is abominable, and it is equally abominable that the Government still claim to have a special relationship with America.
I shall end with a number of points—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down".] I am appalled that Conservative Members should find something funny in what I have said. Let them reflect that 50,000 people do not know what life holds for them in the new year.
I am pleased to note that the Pope has expressed worry about the situation and has urged Britain to take steps in the matter. Also, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Runcie, has spoken out on the issue. Although I see some Conservative Members smiling at what I am saying, I feel that others among them are sincere in hoping that this problem can be resolved amicably. I trust that Members in all parts of the House appreciate that I am sincere in speaking passionately about this issue.
I do not have the solutions to the problems of the world—of dictatorship and of all the other ills that beset mankind—but I offer the suggestion that we, as members of mankind, should do all we can to protect mankind. We should make sure that people have the right to life and we should fight for that right, however much it costs. We in the West, above all, should fight against the oppression of Communism and against other forms of oppression.
As we approach the new year, let us remember what Robbie Burns said about man's inhumanity to man. I hope that, whatever steps result from this debate, they will not result in the Vietnamese being returned to insecurity, prison, a deteriorating standard of life or even death.
The British Government have it in their power to bow to the wishes of international religious and other leaders who have said, in effect, "Please give hope for life to the ordinary men and women who have escaped trials and tribulations and who have sailed the seas in all sorts of weather to reach the security of Hong Kong. Please allow them to live in the West in freedom and security.
I urge the Minister not to be cynical. People in Hong Kong tonight rely on his judgment and sincerity. Let him forget the platitudes that have been used by the Prime Minister and other Ministers. We are looking for a miracle tonight so that folk may have the right to life.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): Seven days ago the Foreign Secretary told the House that we had begun to put into effect a policy, long adopted by the British Government, to return to Vietnam those Vietnamese in Hong Kong who were not refugees. That decision gave pleasure to none and I acknowledge that it has caused anxiety to many, and many of those anxieties have been expressed in this debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) opened the debate in a responsible and measured tone. That tone has not always been reflected in the subsequent contributions, but his speech and a few others captured the underlying feeling of the House. I refer in particular to the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling).
All those distinguished Members of the House come to the issue with long and distinguished experience of

government. All of them are used to the assumption of responsibility and I appreciate their expressions of personal sympathy and support for my right hon. Friend and myself.
Those contributions were in stark contrast to that of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). He ended what I regarded as a grossly irresponsible speech with an allegation about the Government's motivation in this matter that I bitterly resented. It was an allegation that will have earned him the contempt of the whole House.
It is clearly essential for the House to understand fully the background to last Tuesday's return and the basis on which the decision was made. The House will be familiar with much of the background.
In the aftermath of the Vietnam war, many thousands from South Vietnam fled the persecution of a victorious and vindictive regime. The West responded with generosity and compassion. The first Geneva conference, called at our instigation in 1979, agreed that those who fled Vietnam in boats could be assured of first asylum wherever they landed, and that from there they would be resettled in the West.
But it soon became clear that the nature of the exodus from Vietnam was changing. As early as 1981, it was apparent that the majority of those arriving in places such as Hong Kong were not political refugees but people seeking a more prosperous life elsewhere. None the less, despite the evidence of this new pattern, the West maintained its commitment to take in all new arrivals. The United Kingdom, of course, played a full part in that. But by 1987, the numbers were so huge that the ability of the West to take in allcomers was strained.
Of course, there were still refugees, genuinely fleeing persecution, but the ability of the West to give asylum to the genuine refugees was being eroded by the sheer weight of the numbers. Accordingly, Hong Kong decided in June last year to introduce a system of screening, and I believe that it was absolutely right to do so. It was a thorough system, developed in conjunction with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, whose representatives can attend any interviews that are carried out under that procedure. Each applicant for asylum has a right of appeal from the initial decision and has the right to help from the UNHCR in preparing his case.
I know that Amnesty International has criticised some aspects of the process, and I am looking to see whether any of the criticisms are justified, but I believe that the procedure is fair and thorough. I know that, where doubt arises, that doubt is resolved in favour of the applicant.
The purpose of the screening is to distinguish between those who are genuine refugees and those who are not. This is an essential process, which must be carried out by every country that seeks to keep its doors open to asylum seekers. The only alternative to a screening procedure is to abandon the policy of first asylum. Hong Kong does not want that; we do not want it; and this House would not welcome it.

Mr. David Young: rose—

Mr. Maude: I will not give way, because I want t o deal with the points that were made during the debate.
It was thus that, in June this year, a second Geneva conference decided that screening should be introduced universally. That conference, attended by all interested


countries, and by the UNHCR, unanimously reached two distinct decisions. It decided that all those who had arrived before the introduction of screening, and all those whom the screening process found to be refugees, should be resettled in the West within three years. Undertakings have been given by participating countries to ensure that enough places are available for all those refugees. So the West's voluntary practice of taking in all refugees has been fully and honourably maintained, and once again, we have participated in this fully.
The conference's second decision, also unanimous, was that, for those who were found after the screening process not to be refugees, there was nowhere for them to go but back to Vietnam. I stress to the House that it was a unanimous decision, agreed to by every participant at that conference, including the United States and the UNHCR.
The conference agreed that repatriation should, in the first instance, be voluntary. The UNHCR has started this process in Hong Kong, and it has made a little headway, but the numbers returning to Vietnam are tiny as a proportion of the whole. The numbers returning hold no promise that those remaining in Hong Kong will be significantly reduced, or that next year's influx will be any smaller than this year's.
It is worth reminding ourselves—indeed, hon. Members may not be aware—that, since the whole process began in the 1970s, no fewer than 170,000 asylum-seekers from Indo-China have arrived in Hong Kong. To Hong Kong's eternal honour, that tiny territory—the most crowded part of the globe—has not turned away a single one. All have been given shelter, but the burden has become intolerable. Some 57,000 Vietnamese remain in Hong Kong camps, of whom some 34,000 arrived this year alone. It is because of the heavy financial burden that this throws on to the territory that we hold this debate tonight.
In the 10-year period before 1989, the Hong Kong Government spent about £110 million on building and running camps for the boat people. In the last financial year, that increased significantly, and spending reached some £39 million as the numbers arriving rose dramatically. This year, the Hong Kong Government expect to spend £90 million, and it is partly because of that huge increase in costs that we have felt bound to assist Hong Kong.
In the current financial year, we have provided £4.5 million for emergency accommodation. I announced last week a further pledge of £10.6 million for further emergency accommodation, and a 50 per cent. contribution to a new long-term camp. We shall continue to provide Hong Kong with help for as long as it is needed. In addition to those sums, over the past two years we have pledged or spent a further £15 million to help to resolve the problem more widely. We have given the UNHCR more than £8 million, primarily in response to special appeals for boat people, and also for the construction of a camp in Hong Kong. We are making available some £850,000 this year for our bilateral repatriation programme with the Vietnamese, and for monitoring those who are returned.
We have accepted for some time that a move to involuntary repatriation was likely to become necessary. I should add that involuntary repatriation is not a concept invented by Hong Kong in December 1989, but a process that goes on day in, day out across the world—a process

that, by its very nature, involves the return of people against their will to a country that they have sought to leave.
A number of allegations have been made in tonight's debate about what was done on Tuesday morning last week. There was talk of handcuffs; I can tell the House that handcuffs were not used. There was also talk of force, but none was employed, and there was no resistance on the part of those who were returned to Vietnam. It was suggested that the number of escorts was excessive, but I can tell the House tha the number involved is customary worldwide for these procedures.

Mr. Keith Vaz: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maude: No, I will not.
I remind the House that this was compulsory deportation: there is no escaping that. These people were being sent back—against their will—to a country that they had sought to leave, and it is inevitable that people in such circumstances should not be joyful. I assure the House, however, that there was no resistance.

Mr. Vaz: rose—

Mr. Maude: No, I will not give way.
The suggestion that a blanket of secrecy has been imposed rings rather absurd, given that live television pictures were screened worldwide. It has also been suggested that there has been widespread international criticism of our action—

Mr. Graham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maude: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman had his say at considerable length, trying the patience of the House somewhat, and I have many points to answer.
The reality is this. The entire international community agreed at the Geneva conference in June that there was nowhere for these people to go other than back to Vietnam, and the international response to last Tuesday's events has accordingly been broad acceptance. Of course the United States has been critical—there are obvious historical reasons for that—but it has conspicuously not propounded any realistic alternative.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told the House last Tuesday that we were considering the resumption of aid for Vietnam. We may be able to say something about that later, but I must say to the House —as did my right hon. Friend—that it is not an alternative to repatriation. Even if it were to start tomorrow, it would not discourage people immediately from leaving to seek greater prosperity elsewhere and, in any event, the large numbers already in Hong Kong would remain.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maude: No. I am sorry, but I have a number of points to cover.
The aid proposal—serious though it is, and earnestly though we are pursuing it—is not an alternative to repatriation. I am bound to say that I have found some of the arguments that have been advanced a little puzzling: the same people are arguing simultaneously that Vietnam is a tyranny too monstrous to return people to, and that we should be pouring money into it to prop it up. We have, of course, looked carefully at all the many suggested


alternatives to our course of compulsory repatriation, but nothing has emerged that has not either been done already or been universally rejected.
I should like to look briefly at some of the suggested alternatives. It is said, for instance, that we should renew efforts to increase voluntary repatriation. We are doing that, but it is inconceivable that it could suffice on its own. It is also said that we should increase the United Kingdom's quota of refugees but, as I have pointed out, places are already pledged for every refugee. In any case, that suggestion in itself provides no answer to the problem that we are addressing—the problem of those who are screened out as non-refugees.
The richest absurdity, however, has been the Labour party's so-called three-point plan. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that he would introduce a screening procedure with independent appeal: that is the first of the three points. Can he really be unaware that it already exists? He also suggests an international agreement to resettle all political refugees. Can he really be ignorant that such an agreement has already been reached, and that places have been offered for all refugees? As for his third proposal, it was thrown together in contemptuous disregard of the realities. In an interview in The Independent, yesterday, he said:
You get on with the screening [of refugees] … you launch international discussions to see whether it is possible to find in the southern Pacific area a territory where a holding centre can be provided for screened economic migrants from Vietnam. The Philippines has been named as one; possibly Indonesia another.
When asked whether the Philippines or Indonesia would be prepared to provide such a centre, the right hon. Gentleman replied:
Yes, well, I had a considerable discussion a short while ago with Mr. Dukakis …who is very heavily involved in the possibility of the Philippines. I was encouraged to believe it might work.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maude: No, I will not. I have four minutes to go.
It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman, as well as talking to Mrs. Dukakis, did not bother to talk to the Philippines or to Indonesia. That possibility has been canvassed on several occasions, and I have news for the right hon. Gentleman. It should not be news, because he should have studied the position. I can tell him that, on every single occasion, every possible participant has rejected the idea unequivocally.
Even if it worked, what would be the substance of this great liberal alternative? It is that people should be removed from one closed camp in Hong Kong to another elsewhere.

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Maude: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Member for Gorton accepts that that alternative could provide only a temporary pause on the way back to Vietnam. I noticed that, in the same interview, he was asked whether he would like the refugees to settle in this country. What was the answer from this great liberal?
No, we've got lots of people who can open restaurants without having Vietnamese economic migrants who are basically peasants—fishermen and farm-workers and so on.

Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These matters were not dealt with in the debate [Interruption.]The Minister is not answering the questions that he was asked.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That may be a point of argument, but it is not a point of order.

Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman ended his interview with the following ringing declaration:
I wouldn't be a member of a Labour government"—
prophetically, perhaps—
that forcibly sent people to somewhere they didn't want to go.
Again, I have news for the right hon. Gentleman. He was a member of just such a Government. During the previous Labour Government, in every single year when he was a Minister, between 10,000 and 19,000 people were repatriated from Britain. During the same years, Hong Kong, acting with the full authority of the United Kingdom Government, involuntarily repatriated tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to China. Does the right hon. Gentleman really believe that every single one of those people returned voluntarily? Of course not.
Those of us who have responsibilities in these matters are unable to avoid them. It is all very well for Opposition Members to wring their hands, stand on the sidelines and decry what is done, but they do not have to face the realities and accept the responsibilities. For those of us who have the responsibilities, they cannot be dodged or shirked, and we will not shirk them.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 219.

Division No. 25]
[8.40 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Alexander, Richard
Browne, John (Winchester)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Allason, Rupert
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Amos, Alan
Butcher, John


Arbuthnot, James
Butler, Chris


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Ashby, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carrington, Matthew


Atkins, Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, David
Cash, William


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sydney


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chope, Christopher


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Beggs, Roy
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bellingham, Henry
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bendall, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Conway, Derek


Benyon, W.
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Patrick


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Couchman, James


Body, Sir Richard
Gran, James


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boswell, Tim
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bottomley, Peter
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Day, Stephen


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Devlin, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Dicks, Terry


Bowis, John
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dover, Den


Brazier, Julian
Dunn, Bob


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh






Emery, Sir Peter
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Evennett, David
Knowles, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Knox, David


Favell, Tony
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lang, Ian


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lawrence, Ivan


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lee, John (Pendle)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Forman, Nigel
Lightbown, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lilley, Peter


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Lord, Michael


Franks, Cecil
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Freeman, Roger
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gardiner, George
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maclean, David


Gill, Christopher
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Glyn, Dr Alan
Madel, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Major, Rt Hon John


Gorst, John
Malins, Humfrey


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maples, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marlow, Tony


Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Grist, Ian
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grylls, Michael
Mates, Michael


Hague, William
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mellor, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hannam, John
Mills, Iain


Hargreaves, A (B'ham H'll Gr')
Miscampbell, Norman


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Harris, David
Mitchell, Sir David


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger


Hawkins, Christopher
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayes, Jerry
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayward, Robert
Morrison, Sir Charles


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moss, Malcolm


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mudd, David


Hill, James
Neale, Gerrard


Hind, Kenneth
Nelson, Anthony


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Neubert, Michael


Hordern, Sir Peter
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howard, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, Richard


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Paice, James


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Patnick, Irvine


Hunter, Andrew
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Irvine, Michael
Pawsey, James


Irving, Charles
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jack, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jackson, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Janman, Tim
Portillo, Michael


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Redwood, John


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rhodes James, Robert


Key, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Kilfedder, James
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knapman, Roger
Ross, William (Londonderry E)





Rossi, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Rost, Peter
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Rowe, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thorne, Neil


Ryder, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Sackville, Hon Tom;
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sayeed, Jonathan
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


Shaw, David (Dover)
Tredinnick, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shelton, Sir William
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shersby, Michael
Walden, George


Sims, Roger
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Speed, Keith
Ward, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wheeler, John


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Lewis
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Wolfson, Mark


Stokes, Sir John
Wood, Timothy


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Summerson, Hugo
Yeo, Tim


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Tony Durrant and


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Mr. Alastair Goodlad.


Temple-Morris, Peter



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Allen, Graham
Clay, Bob


Alton, David
Clelland, David


Anderson, Donald
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cohen, Harry


Armstrong, Hilary
Coleman, Donald


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Corbett, Robin


Ashton, Joe
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cousins, Jim


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cox, Tom


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Crowther, Stan


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Bob


Battle, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Beckett, Margaret
Cunningham, Dr John


Beith, A. J.
Dalyell, Tam


Bell, Stuart
Darling, Alistair


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Bidwell, Sydney
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Doran, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Douglas, Dick


Boyes, Roland
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bradley, Keith
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Eadie, Alexander


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Buchan, Norman
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Buckley, George J.
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Caborn, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Callaghan, Jim
Fearn, Ronald


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Fisher, Mark


Canavan, Dennis
Flannery, Martin






Flynn, Paul
Michael, Alun


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Foster, Derek
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Foulkes, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fraser, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Fyfe, Maria
Morley, Elliot


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


George, Bruce
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mullin, Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
Murphy, Paul


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Nellist, Dave


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William


Gould, Bryan
O'Neill, Martin


Graham, Thomas
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Patchett, Terry


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pendry, Tom


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Prescott, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Heffer, Eric S.
Radice, Giles


Henderson, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hinchliffe, David
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Reid, Dr John


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Home Robertson, John
Robinson, Geoffrey


Hood, Jimmy
Rogers, Allan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Rooker, Jeff


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howells, Geraint
Rowlands, Ted


Hoyle, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Short, Clare


Illsley, Eric
Sillars, Jim


Ingram, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Kennedy, Charles
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Kirkwood, Archy
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lambie, David
Snape, Peter


Lamond, James
Soley, Clive


Leadbitter, Ted
Spearing, Nigel


Leighton, Ron
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Straw, Jack


Lewis, Terry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Litherland, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Livingstone, Ken
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Livsey, Richard
Turner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Vaz, Keith


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wall, Pat


Loyden, Eddie
Wallace, James


McAllion, John
Walley, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


McCartney, Ian
Wareing, Robert N.


Macdonald, Calum A.
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McFall, John
Widdecombe, Ann


McKelvey, William
Wigley, Dafydd


McLeish, Henry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McNamara, Kevin
Winnick, David


McWilliam, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Madden, Max
Worthington, Tony


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wray, Jimmy


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)



Martlew, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Maxton, John
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Meacher, Michael
Mr. Alan McKay.


Vleale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to

defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990 for expenditure by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on other external relations.

MR. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Order [15 December], to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Estimates appointed for consideration this day.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1989–90

Question put,
That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,881,927,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for defence and civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1990, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 603 of Session 1988–89—[Mr. Lilley.]

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 8.

Division No. 26]
[8.55 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alexander, Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Couchman, James


Alton, David
Cran, James


Amess, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Amos, Alan
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arbuthnot, James
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Day, Stephen


Ashby, David
Devlin, Tim


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Dicks, Terry


Aspinwall, Jack
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, David
Dover, Den


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dunn, Bob


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Durant, Tony


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dykes, Hugh


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Evennett, David


Beggs, Roy
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Beith, A. J.
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Fishburn, John Dudley


Bendall, Vivian
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Forman, Nigel


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus


Body, Sir Richard
Franks, Cecil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Freeman, Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gardiner, George


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gill, Christopher


Bowis, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gorst, John


Brazier, Julian
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry (Baling N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon (Bury St E')


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Burt, Alistair
Grist, Ian


Butcher, John
Grylls, Michael


Butler, Chris
Hague, William


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hanley, Jeremy


Carrington, Matthew
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Cash, William
Harris, David


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hawkins, Christopher


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James


Conway, Derek
Hind, Kenneth


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)






Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Roberts, Wyn (Conmy)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Howells, Geraint
Rost, Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Irvine, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Jack, Michael
Sackville, Hon Tom


Janman, Tim
Sayeed, Jonathan


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Kennedy, Charles
Shelton, Sir William


Key, Robert
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Kilfedder, James
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knowles, Michael
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Knox, David
Speed, Keith


Lang, Ian
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Squire, Robin


Lightbown, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Peter
Stern, Michael


Livsey, Richard
Stevens, Lewis


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Lord, Michael
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Summerson, Hugo


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maclean, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Major, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mans, Keith
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Mates, Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thome, Neil


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, Iain
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Miscampbell, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Monro, Sir Hector
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Viggers, Peter


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Walden, George


Moss, Malcolm
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Mudd, David
Wallace, James


Neale, Gerrard
Waller, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Ward, John


Neubert, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Watts, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wheeler, John


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Whitney, Ray


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Widdecombe, Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wiggin, Jerry


Paice, James
Wilshire, David


Patnick, Irvine
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Winterton, Nicholas


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Wolfson, Mark


Pawsey, James
Wood, Timothy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Yeo, Tim


Porter, David (Waveney)



Powell, William (Corby)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Alistair Goodlad and


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


Riddick, Graham



NOES


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Canavan, Dennis
Cryer, Bob


Cohen, Harry
Loyden, Eddie





Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Win Griffiths and



Mr. Alan W. Williams.

Question accordingly agreed to.

ESTIMATES 1990–91 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Question put,
That a sum not exceeding £58,271,200,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 1991, as set out in House of Commons Papers Nos. 604, 605 and 606 of Session 1988–89.

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 7.

Division No. 27]
[at 9.07 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
French, Douglas


Alton, David
Gale, Roger


Amess, David
Gardiner, George


Amos, Alan
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Arbuthnot, James
Gill, Christopher


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Ashby, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Atkinson, David
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gorst, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bendall, Vivian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grist, Ian


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Grylls, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hague, William


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hawkins, Christopher


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hayes, Jerry


Bright, Graham
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burns, Simon
Hill, James


Burt, Alistair
Hind, Kenneth


Butcher, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Butler, Chris
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butterfill, John
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howells, Geraint


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Irvine, Michael


Carttiss, Michael
Jack, Michael


Cash, William
Janman, Tim


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochtord)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Kennedy, Charles


Conway, Derek
Key, Robert


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Kilfedder, James


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cormack, Patrick
Knapman, Roger


Couchman, James
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Cran, James
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knowles, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lang, Ian


Day, Stephen
Lawrence, Ivan


Devlin, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dorrell, Stephen
Lightbown, David


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lilley, Peter


Dover, Den
Livsey, Richard


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dykes, Hugh
Lord, Michael


Evennett, David
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fishburn, John Dudley
Maclean, David


Fookes, Dame Janet
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Major, Rt Hon John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mates, Michael






Maxell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Iain
Steen, Anthony


Miscampbell, Norman
Stern, Michael


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stevens, Lewis


Mitchell, Sir David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Neale, Gerrard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nelson, Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thorne, Neil


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tracey, Richard


Paice, James
Trotter, Neville


Patnick, Irvine
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Viggers, Peter


Pawsey, James
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Waldegrave, Hon William


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Walden, George


Porter, David (Waveney)
Waller, Gary


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Ward, John


Rhodes James, Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wells, Bowen


Roe, Mrs Marion
Wheeler, John


Rost, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Rowe, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Sackville Hon Tom
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Nicholas


Shelton, Sir William
Wolfson, Mark


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wood, Timothy


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Yeo, Tim


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Tony Durant and


Speed, Keith
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)



NOES


Bennett, A. F. (D'nfn &amp; R'dish)
Skinner, Dennis


Canavan, Dennis



Cohen, Harry
Tellers for the Noes:


Cryer, Bob
Mr. Win Griffiths and


Loyden, Eddie
Mr. Alan W. Williams.


Nellist, Dave

Question accordingly agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Peter Lilley and Mr. Richard Ryder.

Mr. Peter Lilley accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31st March 1990 and 1991; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 12].

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I must inform the House before we begin the debate that Mr. Speaker has determined that the instruction is not being called, but it can of course be referred to in the debate.

Mr. Allan Rogers: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have looked for a copy of the Bill, but one is not available. Will one be made available before business starts?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The papers necessary for the debate are now available in the Vote Office and have been for some time.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have referred to the instruction to the Committee, which I tabled but which was not accepted for debate by Mr. Speaker. You said that it will be in order to discuss it during the Second Reading debate. If the Bill is given a Second Reading, will it be in order for the Committee that might be established to consider the detail of the Bill to consider the matters referred to in the instruction?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Yes. It was because of consideration in Committee that the instruction was not selected.

Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to have reached this Second Reading debate, although the carry-over debate was rather like a Second Reading debate and covered much of the ground. I shall try not to repeat myself and will attempt to be brief. I am forced to be excessively brief by the requirements of the House, but I want to give the positive developments that have taken place since the carry-over debate.
The Bill is a positive measure for the environment and for people. The economic case for it has been strengthening all the time. Interest in Cardiff continues to grow, as it has since Labour-controlled South Glamorgan county council took the first and major step of faith by building the new county hall in the derelict heart of my constituency. Commitment by the private sector waits in the wings for the Bill to go through. Confidence grows with the success of the carry-over motion, and will continue to grow as time goes on.
Not only Cardiff will benefit from the barrage and the economic development that will follow its building. Thirty per cent. of the jobs created in Cardiff go to people living outside it, and I cannot believe that, in the surrounding area, the local authorities and people of the valleys will want the scheme to be defeated and its benefits lost to the region.

Mr. Rogers: I accept my hon. Friend's argument that there is always a spin-off from any development to the surrounding area. He has emphasised that the main promoters of the Bill are the Labour-controlled authorities. If that is so, why did not South Glamorgan county council and Cardiff city council consult other Labour-controlled authorities in the surrounding area?


Indeed, it was only after fairly strenuous opposition from me that Mid Glamorgan and the adjacent Labour authorities were consulted.

Mr. Michael: My understanding is that there has been plenty of discourse between the different local authorities.
The economic evidence shows the benefits that will come to the whole area. The private-sector leverage for the total scheme involving the barrage is assessed at 8·9:1. That means that £1 billion of private-sector development over the next 10 to 15 years depends on the barrage being built.
The scheme has been evaluated in line with Treasury guidelines: in terms of net economic impact, which assesses benefits against costs, the barrage far outweighs a mini-barrage or no barrage at all. The comparative figures at net present value terms are plus £77 million for the barrage, minus £61 million for the mini-barrage and minus £113 million for no barrage. The Select Committee can cross-examine that evidence and consider it in detail. I give that outline because it is an overwhelming argument for building the barrage. Those economic arguments should certainly be considered in detail in the Select Committee. The Bill and the barrage are needed to achieve the full regeneration of the docklands, the region of Cardiff and south Wales.
The second important aspect relates to groundwater. Hon. Members will know that, as recently as the carry-over debate, I reserved my position on groundwater. I said that, if all the evidence pointed to serious detriment to my constituents, I would not hesitate to say that that price could not be paid for redevelopment. I have gone on a genuine search for truth, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) has also been concerned about groundwater.
I sought the services of an independent expert of international standing. We did not just bring somebody in. I went looking for somebody who could approach the matter with complete independence and authority. I then went to the Cardiff Bay development corporation and sought its agreement to that on the basis of testing the evidence to destruction and hearing the worst, and access to all data, information and work undertaken to find the effects of groundwater levels.
The end result was the identification of Mr. Glyn Jones, who directs the postgraduate course in hydrogeology at University college London, to undertake the study. He was critical of the work done on behalf of the development corporation and exhaustive in his investigations. At the end of the day, he gave the barrage and certainly the work undertaken on behalf of the promoters a clean bill of health. He said:
The consultants have certainly built in a generous safety factor which should improve confidence in the less-thanprecise calculations used for predictive purposes and outweigh any margin of error.

Mr. Rogers: My interventions are to establish facts. I have yet to be convinced either way. My hon. Friend mentioned the report by a completely independent hydrogeologist. Will it be available to hon. Members, perhaps not this evening, but at some stage? My hon. Friend will be aware that I have had reservations about groundwater reports in the past.

Mr. Michael: Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend that it is available to anybody who is interested. I have made a copy available to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West, who has a serious interest as the Member for the neighbouring Constituency. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library because it should be available to hon. Members. My hon. Friend will find it worth perusing.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: While I accept that there is no question about the academic credentials of Mr. Jones, surely they are no higher than those of Dr. Stuart Noakes, who reported in similar circumstances for the residents action groups. That was paid for by the Cardiff Bay development corporation, but commissioned by the residents action groups against the barrage and the Cardiff Bay development corporation, which together set out the terms of reference. Dr. Noakes came out with critical comments about the likelihood that studies done so far by the hydrogeologist commissioned by the Cardiff Bay development corporation did not give any guarantee against flooding. The one thing that is missing from Glyn Jones's report is any mention of the exact terms of reference.

Mr. Michael: I have undertaken to give my hon. Friend a copy of the terms of reference, and I managed to locate them this evening. My desk, like his, tends to be a minefield.
The report will be available to the Special Standing Committee, and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West that it was done on the basis of tests to destruction, and that all the evidence and the worst possible solutions would be made publicly available. I do not accept his comparison of the expertise, but the Committee will be able to consider that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West knows that little difference was left between Dr. Noakes and the experts who acted on behalf of the development corporation, by the end of the House of Lords' consideration of the report.
I have a reference for Glyn Jones's expertise from Sir James Lighthill, the former principal of University college, London, which says:
Scientists from all over the world come to study hydrogeology with Glyn Jones, returning with a master of science degree in the subject, which is internationally recognised as a guarantee of excellence and sound knowledge in this field.
Other references have been taken up.
The independence of the work, which involved the testing to destruction of the available evidence, and the fact that it was overseen by me and County Councillor Peter Perkins, who represents the area nearest to the bay and has no connection with the development corporation, are assurances of the neutrality and validity of the report.
The end result of the investigation should give greater confidence than the evidence available in the House of Lords' report, when the Committee ended by giving a clean bill of health to the work done on groundwater.

Mr. Morgan: I wonder whether my hon. Friend would care to rethink one of the remarks that he made, because I think that he implied that the academic expertise of Glyn Jones is greater than that of Dr. Stuart Noakes. If he is asserting that, can he say why?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend may have misinterpreted what I said. There is no doubt about the pre-eminence of


Mr. Jones in this field. There was hardly any gap between his assessment and that of Dr. Noakes, and the experts called upon by the Cardiff Bay development corporation at the end of the House of Lords session. However, I can assert with confidence that the Jones report is the result of the only study into all the work done to date, by a genuinely independent expert of international repute. His findings will, of course, be open to scrutiny by the Committee.

Mr. John P. Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the scheme goes ahead, we could be presented with a unique opportunity to clean up the waters of the bay and, for the first time in many decades, it will also be possible to clean up the waters of the Bristol channel?
We know that sewage outfalls into the bay will have to be redirected. Presumably they will be redirected to the existing outfalls on the coast, including those in my constituency. We have a unique opportunity to ensure that the waters of Cardiff Bay are treated, and the existing sewage outfalls are treated, and that will clean up the Bristol channel.

Mr. Michael: That is outside the scope of the Bill, but, in fairness to my hon. Friend, I agree with him that there will be an opportunity to clean up water and sewage outfalls to meet European standards, and like my hon. Friend, I have spoken to the promoters of the Bill about that. I hope that it will be pursued.
My constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan share a boundary in the south Penarth and Lavernock area. I hope that the opportunity he mentions will be taken up, and I commend it for further investigation by the Minister.
During the weekend, I met the Butetown residents. Despite the title of the group, it stressed that it is not against the barrage but wants protection to he built into the Bill. I pay tribute to the tenacious way in which it has pursued that clear objective. It raised the protection period of 20 years and sought an assurance that common law protection will remain after that time. The promoters gave that assurance clearly to the Committee of another place, but the group fears that that assurance has not been written into the Bill. I am pleased to say that, at my request, the promoters agreed this week to amend the Bill so that such assurance appears on the face of the Bill.
I have pursued several vital issues with the promoters, such as affordable homes, and the retention of existing jobs even if their relocation is inevitable. There have been detailed discussions. They have sometimes been abrasive, but they have also been positive and productive. The local authority has a similar creative relationship with the development corporation. That is not always the case in other parts of the country.
The question that has to be answered today is whether there is any reason to deny the Bill a Second Reading. The answer must be a resounding no. We have the alternative proposal by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which bears a strong similarity to the idea it launched one year previously. While it should receive fair consideration, there are obvious problems with it, to some of which I have referred. If opponents of the scheme are so confident, why do they not allow the Special Standing Committee to consider all the evidence, including information about sites of special scientific interest, to which my hon. Friend the

Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) referred? I agree that some of the matters to be considered require serious consideration.

Mr. Ron Davies: My hon. Friend referred to me and asked a question, so I must reply. The objection to the barrage is a matter of principle. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has written to most hon. Members involved in the debate, has made it clear that the alternative it suggests does not involve the construction of a barrage. That is why the RSPB and many other conservation bodies oppose the Bill in principle.

Mr. Michael: I appreciate my hon. Friend's argument. It is something on which we have to agree to differ, as we have from the beginning.
The most vigorous campaign has been conducted by those who want to protect the natural environment. As the natural environment is one of my passionate concerns, I respect the motivation but believe that the wrong target has been selected. This is not a natural environment. It is manmade, derelict and polluted. That is what birds have adapted to. A real clean-up allied to silting would destroy an environment that suits them now.
The promoters have offered major investment in alternative feeding grounds. Nature will adapt to a cleaner, healthier Cardiff bay. The human inhabitants will benefit from a cleaner, healthier environment. It is they, the people of the communities with high unemployment and a poor environment who need the benefits that the Bill and the barrage would bring to their job prospects, their future and their environment. It is for their sakes that I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading, so that it can receive the detailed scrutiny of a Special Standing Committee.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I am grateful for this opportunity to pursue the questions initiated, after a fashion, by the carry-over motion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said, a great deal has happened since that motion was passed. I want to draw attention to some of the new material.
We meet within seven days of the 10th anniversary of the last major flood of the River Taff, which runs through my constituency. On 26 December 1979, a major flood almost caught a large audience of children at Chipperfield's circus in my constituency. They narrowly escaped with their lives into the offices of the Transport and General Workers' Union in Cathedral road in which both my hon. Friend and the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and I have our constituency offices—[HON. MEMBERS: "On the fourth floor!"] The children were taken to the mezzanine floor.

Mr. Roy Hughes: It is worth pointing out that the Transport and General Workers Union is wholly in favour of the Bill.

Mr. Morgan: I was not aware of any vote on the issue by the Transport and General Workers Union which sponsors me and my hon. Friend and, of course, the Leader of the Opposition.
In my surgeries I am still dealing with compensation cases which have not yet been completed since that flood 10 years ago. I hope that the House will understand just


how badly scarred are the residents of the low-lying areas of my constituency—Riverside, Pontcanna Canton and Leckwith from the past flooding.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Will my hon. Friend explain the reasons for that flood and the previous one, which have nothing to do with the Bill?

Mr. Morgan: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) thinks that he knows the answer to that question, but I think that it is wrong. He thinks that the flood was caused by the inrushing tide coinciding with water coming down the river, but that is not the case. It was caused by human error in the operation of the flood prevention warning.

Mr. Flynn: I thought that.

Mr. Morgan: He did think that. My constituents are worried that human error can still occur and that, if there was a barrage, the consequences would be even more catastrophic than they were in 1979. Trauma still affects the elderly people in the low-lying parts of my constituency which were flooded in 1979 and 1960. Some people still come to my surgery to untangle the compensation cases, and even when the compensation right has not been contested by the city or county council, compensation has still not been paid in full. This is 10 years, less one week, later. That is why my constituents are extremely concerned about the effect on them of anything that alters the water regime to lock the water in, rather than letting it out.

Mr. Michael: I have frequently said that I understand the impact of those events on the inhabitants of my hon. Friend's constituency. Does he not accept that this has little to do with the actual or likely effects of the Bill and the development?

Mr. Morgan: I wish that were true. My hon. Friend has already adduced the names of various distinguished and, as he calls them, pre-eminent, academics such as Mr. Glyn Jones, who has assured him about the groundwater conditions in his constituency. Although I was not consulted about that exercise, I think that, for reasons best known to him, my hon. Friend believes that it also applies to my constituency. If my hon. Friend is interested in the views of pre-eminent academics, he will also be aware of the views of other pre-eminent academics, such as Dr. Gordon Saunders, also of London university, who say that this will increase the flooding risk. That is not only Dr. Saunders's view, but that of Dr. Stuart Noakes, who is at least as well, if not better, academically qualified and has more practical experience because he lives in south Wales and is more familiar with the flood risk to the low-lying terrain in the four wards of my constituency.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Morgan: I shall give way to my hon. Friend at the rate of once every 10 seconds.

Mr. Michael: Does my hon. Friend accept that Dr. Saunders's evidence cannot be tested because it has not yet been given?

Mr. Morgan: That is a mysterious definition. If my hon. Friend had read the local newspapers, he would have seen Dr. Saunders's views which they gave, in extenso, making

it clear that this was the view of an academic who has an equal, if not greater, right to be regarded as a pre-eminent academic to the one whose evidence my hon. Friend used. My hon. Friend cannot come to the House and pick and choose which academics he wants us to believe. If he thinks that Mr. Glyn Jones is some sort of God from the sky, a Roger Quittendon type of figure, whom everyone in Wales must bow down to and accept without further reference to other academics who do live in or come from south Wales, he is asking an awful lot.
Three major academics—Dr. Saunders, Dr. Noakes and Dr. Miles—all believe that the research done so far by the development corporation into the barrage and its effects on flooding is deeply flawed and inadequately researched. No hon. Member would gainsay the fact that those three are also extremely distinguished engineering experts on underwater geology.

Mr. Michael: I contest that. It is only sensible to allow the Select Committee to consider the comparative qualifications of the different people and the evidence that they give.

Mr. Morgan: I wonder whether my hon. Friend might allow me some sort of intermission so that I can continue my speech. If he contests the principle that they are pre-eminent academics, he must say why—[Interruption]. Now my hon. Friend is suggesting that he does not contest that. It is nonsense. Perhaps he would allow me to proceed for, shall we say, 20 seconds?
Three matters have altered substantially since the carry-over motion. The first is the production of the "Living Waterfront" alternative by the Save the Taff Consortium, which is a combination of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other naturalist bodies, together with the residents action groups against the barrage. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that the alternative was produced by the RSPB. It was not. The person who designed the scheme was a member of a residents action group against the barrage. The Save the Taff Consortium is a unique conjunction of conservation bodies and residents action groups against the barrage. It would be wrong to give the impression, as my hon. Friend did, that it entirely emanated from the RSPB.
The second change relates to grants from the EEC. We must allay any fears that the Opposition are opposed to persuading the Welsh Office to spend more public money in Cardiff, in the three Glamorgans, in Gwent, in Wales or in the United Kingdom. We are in favour of the spending of strategically designed sums of public money intended to engender more public and private investment. However, the Bill is the wrong way to do it.
The EEC determination will be rubber stamped tomorrow. However, I am sure that the Minister will confirm that it has already been taken. South Wales will be short of regional development funds. The four counties of industrial south Wales and the industrial part of Dyfed will have to manage on very short rations from the EEC for the next three years. Only £50 million will be available for four and a half counties of industrial south Wales. It is a cut of at least a half in what we usually have. The amount will have to be made up by the Welsh Office, because otherwise we shall be short of development money. Extra public money will have to go into the Butetown link.
I hope that Conservative Members will not accuse us of being churlish about the offer by the Welsh Office and the Treasury to spend public money on this scheme. We have much better ideas for what should be done with public money. The "Living Waterfront" scheme is a better barrage and our ideas for spending public money will produce far more jobs than would the sterile barrage idea. We are pro-development and pro-environment.
Some 550 people attended a meeting in the city hall at Cardiff to launch the "Living Waterfront" scheme. I thought that it was mad to book the main assembly rooms. I expected only the front three rows to be filled. In fact, the hall, which holds 800 people, was more than five eighths full. It was a most impressive gathering—a combination of conservationists and anti-barrage residents groups.
We must understand those critical factors. Industrial south Wales will be short of public money for development. A report by Coopers and Lybrand pleads the case for the Butetown link being given European regional development fund and Welsh Office support through transport supplementary grant or by an extra grant, through the back door, to the Cardiff Bay development corporation, which would pay it to South Glamorgan. The report makes it clear that there would be development in Cardiff bay if the Butetown link is built. That is far more important than anything that the barrage is likely to contribute.
There is absolutely no other way of interpreting the statement in paragraph 549 of the report. After interviewing people in the property development industry, the writers of the report said:
A majority of interviewees not yet committed to investment would still consider investment in the wider area if there was no barrage.
Remember, the report is talking about property developers.
However, this would significantly influence the timing and scale of their investment, the quality and value of activity and their choice of location either within the Bay or elsewhere. None of them interviewed would invest without improvement in road links in the Bay area.
The Butetown road link is the critical factor. That will not now get an EEC grant, and that will leave South Glamorgan either with a shattering level of poll tax in the coming few years or it will be necessary for the Welsh Office to up the level of grant to South Glamorgan because that road is now estimated to cost £116 million, making it easily the most expensive county highway project ever launched in Wales.
A grant of at least £25 million over and above the normal 50 per cent. transport supplementary grant is now necessary to replace the lost European regional development fund grant. I will not now go into the reasons why we lost that grant; that is a debate for another place and time.
Not only Coopers and Lybrand say that the barrage is not as important as other essential factors. For example, in the December 1989 issue of Housing magazine there is an interesting quotation from Barratt's south Wales general manager, Mr. Melhuish:
Barry Melhuish, Sales Director of Barratt, South Wales, confirms this. 'Our development is planned as a waterside development"'—
he was referring to the Windsor Quays development on Ferry road—
'which can cater for the barrage happening or not happening.' He says, 'We are proceeding without a care for the barrage.'

Not only is Barratt's saying that. It is now as plain as a pikestaff. During the summer, Sam Pickstock of Tarmac South Wales said that he did not intend to wait for the barrage and that his investment decisions had nothing to do with whether the barrage went ahead—and that was the view of the largest housing developer in Britain.
With industrialists, the CBDC has become a dirty word. The CBDC has sterilised development for the last two years in the area of the old East Moors steelworks. Indeed, during the summer, things got so bad that the Welsh Office issued a warning to the CBDC to the effect that it must get its act together.
It is not unfair to say that the CBDC has, in Cardiff's case, been the biggest job destroyer since the Luftwaffe. In the middle of last year, AA Insurance Services was launching a project which would have brought an additional 500 jobs to Cardiff, but as a result of being messed about by the CBDC, that development went to Newcastle.
That is one reason why the CBDC has become a dirty word, although we could also quote in graphic terms Mr. Mike McGrane of Paul's Industrial Services, one of the major employers in the bay, with 400 jobs involved. When the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, the former Prime Minister, now Lord Callaghan, was opening some premises, Mr. McGrane said:
The main problem with Cardiff Bay is that I have always failed to get a response. Their development people have been courteous and helpful, but I believe their hands have been tied. I honestly cannot understand the motives of the Bay. It is also worth pointing out that as a local firm, we have never been asked to submit a tender for any of the work being carried out for them. How can they say that this is for the benefit of local businesses?
It is interesting to note what Lord Callaghan said. On this occasion he was opening new premises, and the Cardiff Bay development corporation had already said that those premises would have to be knocked down. Lord Callaghan said:
I shall never forget this day. Never before have I been asked to unveil a plaque for a building that was going to be knocked down.
That is the present state of affairs. The job-creation agency set up by the Government is destroying jobs before reaching the job-creation stage.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is quoting a series of examples which are not open to proper debate in the House. Indeed, it would be wrong for us now to debate those individual examples. Will my hon. Friend take it from me that 4 have been involved with a number of problems of concern to individual firms?

Mr. Morgan: I have the details of the examples with me.

Mr. Michael: I am aware of the circumstances to which my hon. Friend referred. I assure him that I take an interest in firms in my constituency, and I feel better placed than he is to say that he is grossly overstating the case.

Mr. Morgan: I find it difficult to understand how I can be grossly overstating the case when I am quoting what has been said by major employers.
The question, then, concerns the competence of the Cardiff Bay development corporation, something which grievously worries my constituents. Since the carry-over motion, the development corporation and the county council have attempted to correct the incorrect map that


they signed. When we debated the motion, I was told that the issue of the incorrect map was a minor one, that all would be put right and that everyone would be happy. My constituents, however, are still extremely unhappy about the compensation map signed in error by Lord Elibank.
Lord Elibank has since signed a new plan, which has been displayed in certain public places—the city hall, the county headquarters and Baltic house, the corporation's headquarters. Lists have been sent out to local residents affected by the change in the line of the plan, telling them, "We are very sorry that we put your house on the wrong side of the line; we have now corrected our mistake." There is still a mistake, however.
The corporation told me about one further change that it had made, but it has also made further uncovenanted changes involving nine houses in Severn grove, Nos. 63 to 81. Those houses have still been omitted from a list in which—according to the original plan put before the House of Lords—they should have been included. The intent of Cardiff Bay and the co-promoter, South Glamorgan, is still being defeated. At 7 pm today, I was given a press release by Pontcanna Residents Against the Barrage, which has studied the plans most diligently. I am told that its secretary had the two maps in front of her, and saw that the large one did not tally with the small one that had been distributed to everyone.
The corporation's competence is in doubt on two counts: the destruction of jobs, and the failure to get the compensation maps right. Compensation is a major issue in my constituency, as I am sure that it is in Cardiff, South and Penarth. Tenants probably have not received letters at all, simply because they were addressed to "The Resident"—one resident per house—meaning that those in bedsit-land would not receive the information. That may be why the Woolwich Building Society is to publish tomorrow a survey of house price changes in south Wales up to the year 2000. According to tonight's edition of the South Wales Echo, the report—which I have not read—comments that concern about flooding may well cause the price of houses in low-lying parts of Cardiff to lag behind that of houses in other parts. The Bill, however, contains no proposals for changes in property values that penalise residents of low-lying areas.
Among the academics who have studied the geological aspects of the case, there are those who believe that there is nothing to worry about—for instance, Mr. Jones, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, and Mr. Roly Edwards, who works for Cardiff Bay and is a consultant to Wallace Evans and Partners—and three who believe that there is a great deal to worry about: Drs. Saunders, Miles and Noake, who are all extremely distinguished in their field. What marks out the opponents of the barrage, however, is their familiarity with geological conditions in south Wales.
I am in no position to judge who is pre-eminent, but it is surely more than a coincidence that the practical but highly qualified academics who are worried about flooding and groundwater were either born and brought up in south Wales or worked there—or both. That is not true of Mr. Jones or Mr. Edwards, who are not so well acquainted with the unusual geological and water conditions there. The level of rivers can rise dramatically following rain in

the Beacons and the valleys, and when the great Atlantic depressions sweep across for three weeks, followed by a final great downpour, the river flow is strongly affected.

Mr. Rogers: I am sure that hon. Members are bored with the ping-pong battle between the consultant geologists. I am an engineering geologist by profession, and quite frankly I am completely bored with it. I do not claim any pre-eminence; all I can do is read the report that was financed by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. On table 6.1, Wallace Evans listed nine potential hazards in the area. It takes into account some hazards and discounts others. A closer reading of the part of the report that discounts the hazards shows that the consultants for the corporation cannot dismiss them completely, so it will become a matter of conjecture between the so-called experts because they are dealing with marginal hazards that have been acknowledged. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Morgan: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) who is academically, geologically and politically pre-eminent. I hope that he will be satisfied with my decision to leave geology and turn to environmental matters. I wish to depart from the chambers of the Royal Geological Society and turn to water quality, which has already been mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West, for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith).
One question that has emerged since we last debated the Bill is how to clean up the waters of the Taff beyond the stage at which all the sewage is treated without locking rich nutrients into the lake that would be formed behind the dam. I am told that the only way to do that would be to do what is done in parts of Germany, as most of Germany is landlocked—phosphate stripping.
Phosphate stripping is a major exercise which requires a large area of land, so it would have to be done somewhere in my constituency or that of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr Grist)—somewhere in Blackweir or Pontcanna fields. It would require a very extensive acreage for a large double treatment works so that the water entering the bay was cleaned of all the rich nutrients from the treated sewage from the Cynon valley, the Rhondda that is trapped at Cilfynydd and elsewhere at other sewage treatment works.
That would create a very major problem. It is not in the proposals of the CBDC or the Welsh water authority. It has not been costed or designed and it is not on offer to us, so we must assume that the water entering the lake would be extremely rich in nutrients from treated sewage.
Is there a way to prevent untreated sewage from forcing its way into the Taff on a massive scale? Last week, during the heavy rain, we all went down to check on the Taff and we saw a massive wave of plastic bags, council house doors, and sanitary items, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) so graphically the last time we discussed these matters. The only way to get rid of that would be to have rainwater drains in the valleys so large that they would be something like 10 ft above the road.
The flashiness of the rivers in south Wales in response to heavy rain is such that the rainwater goes straight into the river on a colossal scale because there is no soil cover on the sides of the valleys as the trees were all cut down for pit props during world war one. There is no way of coping


with that. We shall always have that problem. In every heavy rain storm during the winter, untreated sewage will be forced into the river and trapped in the bay and the lake, making the lake extremely unsightly and microbiologically hazardous for anyone brave enough to think of immersion or occasional immersion sports.
Finally, the residents have every right to remain extremely concerned about their future happiness and security in their homes. They are deeply cynical about the way in which they have been treated over the past 10 years by the city council and the county council in respect of flood compensation claims. They do not, therefore, always believe what authority tells them. We might say that they should believe what authority tells them and that the scheme will reduce flood danger, but they know that academic opinion on the subject is divided.
People will naturally play safe and say that if all the academics had told them that the scheme would reduce the risk from flooding, they would believe them, but as the academics are split 50:50 and the experts who live in south Wales have said that we must be careful about the scheme because it could make matters worse, it is natural that those of my constituents who live in low-lying areas which are prone to flooding and who have experience of flooding will say that they do not want the scheme and that they do not think that it will he good for their environment. Whatever is good for the environment must not mean 4 ft of dirty floodwater from the Taff in their ground floor premises every 20 years.
It is all very well for people to say that the CBDC is staffed by experts and has the most expensive consultants that money can buy. Let us never forget that the Titanic was built by professionals, whereas Noah's Ark was built by inspired and very committed amateurs.

Mr. Denzil Davies: It may seem trite to say so, but the Bill seeks to build a barrage. If one looks at the long title to the Bill, it is also intended to build a lagoon at Wentlloog. I understand, from reading the evidence in the other place and from listening to what has been said tonight, that if the Bill does not become law, the development of the dockland area in Cardiff will still go ahead. It is not the purpose of any of us who oppose the barrage to oppose such a development. I concede readily that the development may be of a different form, and that it may be at a slower pace, but no one has argued that there will be no development.
There have been various objections, which I shall merely mention because I am not competent, as the Member for Llanelli, to deal with them. They are matters for my hon. Friends who represent Cardiff constituencies. One objection is that the barrage scheme will have a bad effect on the local community and there is the danger of flooding. There are also environmental problems, including problems for bird life, and the question of public subsidy. I have read the reports of the previous debate in this House and the debates in the other place, and the evidence that was given to the House of Lords Select Committee. It is surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and other hon. Members did not mention the public subsidy. We deserve to know about it and I hope that the Minister will realise that he has a duty to tell us about it.
The Welsh Office issued a press release on 11 December

this year which, in effect, boasted about the £100 million to be paid to the development corporation out of Government money over a period of three years, as I understand it. We were not told in the press release what the money would be spent on or what part of the Welsh Office budget the money would come from. I hope that we shall be told tonight what the money will be spent on, where it will come from and how much there will be. Apparently, the private sector can put in £8 for every £1 of public sector money. Let us be told how much the public sector will put into what is, in effect, a private venture.
All those objections are valid, but I should like to widen the debate a little and to concentrate on some other aspects of the scheme. To me and to some of my hon. Friends—I am sorry to say this in respect of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth—this scheme seems, as do so many others of its kind, to epitomise much of what has been wrong about 10 years of Thatcherite Britain. The scheme will contribute little, if anything, to primary production. It is concerned with consumption, not with production. It is about property, up-market housing, shopping malls, leisure and tourism.
Those are all no doubt good and worthy when they are the by-product of the fruits of production in a healthy economy. Such projects may be very worthy in France, Germany, Scandinavia, Japan and other countries with strong economies, but they are not something to boast about or to embark upon in the Britain of the late-1980s and 1990s, given our weak industrial base. Britain cannot afford them, and south Wales, with an even weaker industrial base, can afford them even less.
The scheme is all too familiar and predictable. Most of us know the syndrome, although perhaps on a smaller scale. First, one finds a consultant. The very word "consultant"—especially if one puts the word "management" in front of it—strikes awe and terror in many people's hearts and minds. Once one has found a consultant, he goes away and looks into the matter I am sorry to say that very few of these guys have much imagination. They follow fashion and they are good at drawing up Bills, but they lack imagination. I have not seen a Leonardo da Vinci among them so far.
The fruits of the consultants' work are predictable. In this case, we have a barrage, or a lagoon, or a lake: it does not really matter what one calls it. As Cecil B. De Mille might have said, "You've got to get water, and plenty of water." That is where they start; then they put little boats on the water and build houses round it. Once they have done that, they need a golf course. After all, these hard-working consultants have to have a break between one report and the next. Then, if they can, they make a ski slope, which might be very difficult in Wentlloog.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Come to Merthyr. We have a fine ski slope there.

Mr. Davies: Indeed, but my hon. Friend does not have a lagoon.
I suppose that we could have a water ski slope in Wentlloog. I am sure that the corporation, whose representative must be listening to the debate, could come up with some sort of ski slope.
If one pays a little bit extra, one can also get a park for rare breeds of animals, such as Jacob sheep, or whatever. In Llanelli some time ago, it was suggested that land that used to be employed for a modern steelworks that was


destroyed in the early phases of Thatcherism—in the early 1980s—could be used as a park for pink pigs. Luckily, with their well-known wit and sense of the ridiculous, my constituents managed to laugh that bit of consultancy out of town.

Mr. Ron Davies: What was their colour?

Mr. Denzil Davies: They were pink.

Mr. Ron Davies: Well, most of them are.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Oh, dear!
The Bill is not about water but about residential and commercial property. No doubt somewhere in the pretty plans there will be a few sites for factories, just to satisfy those of us old-fashioned enough to believe in production and manufacturing. But most of the property will be residential or commercial because residential and commercial land values in that area are far higher than land values for factories, and it is easier to borrow on the basis of those higher land values.
Most of the properties will be housing; not any old housing, oh no! I have read the evidence from the other place and the Select Committee report, and I know that it will be up-market housing for the professional classes. The Select Committee gave the game away. If there is no barrage, we are told, there will still be about 2,700 houses, but unfortunately very few of them will be "of high quality". That means that they will be houses for the working classes, and that, of course, will not do. So—hey presto!—we have a barrage. Then we are allowed 5,000 houses, and three quarters of the 5,000 houses will be of "the highest quality". That means houses for the professional classes.
We have not heard any economic analysis. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth did not mention any economic benefits and there has been no study of them. Presumably, the "trickle down" theory applies. If houses are built for surveyors, stockbrokers, solicitors, lawyers and accountants, their expertise, wealth and everything that they contribute will trickle down and irrigate the land and the economy all around them. That is the theory, but I do not believe it and the history of south Wales during the past 10 years does not show that it happens. Indeed, despite all these wonderful developments, income per head of population in Wales during the past 10 years has fallen dramatically.
Housing in Britain is heavily subsidised. In my opinion, it is too heavily subsidised, but we could debate that matter on another occasion. Although it is heavily subsidised, the money that the Welsh Office will put into this project may not go directly into housing. However, it will be spent on roads, sewers and other ancillary matters needed for house building. In effect, the £100 million will be a subsidy to private sector housing—and to up-market private sector housing at that. If money is available for housing, I, and I am sure most of my hon. Friends, can think of better places and better ways of spending it.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a quarter of the housing that is to be provided will be low-cost housing for first-time buyers and that that will be of tremendous benefit to people in Cardiff?

Mr. Davies: I said that three quarters of the housing would be high-quality housing, so on that basis presumably one quarter will be low quality. About 25 per cent. of the housing will be for the low-quality end of the market—[Interruption.] Yes, my hon. Friend cannot deny that—

Mr. Wardell: It will be low-cost housing.

Mr. Davies: Well, "low cost" and "low quality" sometimes go together—[Interruption.]—but not always.
During the past 10 years, one third of Britain's manufacturing industry and base has disappeared. Probably more than one third of our industrial base has disappeared in south Wales and we may never get it back. Britain has a balance of payments deficit of £20 billion. We have an inflation rate of 8 per cent. and interest rates of 15 per cent. During the past 10 years, money has been poured into property development in the residential and commercial sectors, causing the kind of inflation that we now have and contributing to the high interest rates that are crucifying manufacturing industry.
If the property companies that are to be part of the development examine the cost of borrowing the money that they will need for the development, I wager that they will find that the average cost of the interest is far below the best or market rate of interest when amortised over the life of the property. Although small engineering companies, small foundries and small machine tool companies pay interest at 16, 17 or 18 per cent., pension funds or property companies pay nothing near that rate.
However, without the manufacturing concerns, the foundries or machine tool shops, all these developments will wither on the vine and eventually become white elephants. As for jobs, we know the kind of jobs that will be produced by the development. They are part-time, low-paid jobs. That is what we have suffered from in south Wales during the past 10 years.
In conclusion, the building of the barrage is a product of the excesses and profligacy of Thatcher Britain during the 1980s—of the borrowing and reborrowing on property. I do not know whether the Bill will become law, but if the provisions are enacted in 1990, the building will no doubt begin in 1990. However, the boom is over and the excesses will have to be paid for. I do not know whether the country will be prepared to pay in the early 1990s for the excesses of the 1980s. I do not know whether it will be prepared to pay for this development and, whether or not the Bill goes through, I suspect that we shall not be able to pay for this development.

Mr. Paul Flynn: My qualification for speaking in the debate is that I spent the first 30 years of my life living in Grangetown, an experience that few, if any, hon. Members will have shared. I have a passionate interest in the area and a desire to see its improvement.
I can speak about Llanelli with the same authority with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) spoke about Cardiff—nil. He clearly does not understand the effect that the Bill will have on a great circle of working-class homes that are already there. The area of Channel view, the Marl, Avondale road, the Hamadryad and going round to Splott has for several generations been shunned and despised by Cardiff.
We hear talk of Cardiff bay. When I was a boy I knew all about Tiger bay, but I had never heard of Cardiff bay. It has suddenly been presented as an area that is desirable and unique. It is unique in some ways. It is a vast mud slum surrounded by refuse tips. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds finds it beautiful. I know that distance lends enchantment to the view. We know that Cardiff bay looks attractive from Caerphilly, and from Scunthorpe it looks magnificent.

Mr. Elliot Morley: Does my hon. Friend accept that I have had letters from people who live in the area who share the view of the environmentalists that the bay is not only important environmentally but should be built into the city—that it is part of the city's heritage and should be developed and improved? I accept my hon. Friend's points, but does he accept that if the barrage were scrapped, the money could be diverted to enhancing the area so that we could have the bay, the birds and the improvements?

Mr. Flynn: I shall come to that point. My hon. Friend is a member of the ruling body of the RSPB, whose president comes from Iceland. From Iceland, Cardiff bay looks as beautiful as the Bay of Naples. It looks wonderful. When we previously debated the matter, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) complained bitterly that if the barrage is constructed the water will not be blue. But even the Bay of Naples is not blue. The Bristol channel is brown. Roath park in the centre of Cardiff is an ugly green colour, but it is acceptable and many of us use such areas with pleasure for recreational purposes. The only chance of the water becoming blue is if there is an outbreak of blue-green algae, which is the great threat to the barrage and could result in toxins being released.
But the great lesson here is not in the pessimism and the hundreds of reasons that people can think up why the project will go wrong. Rather we should look at the environmental crime that has been committed in Cardiff over the years. When I was a boy I used to swim in the River Taff from Penarth road bridge. The water there was not blue or brown, it was black, but it has improved enormously since. The crime is not that we shall create a lagoon that will be polluted; the crime is that we have allowed such pollution to continue all these years. The need to clean up the Rivers Taff and Ely must be part of the construction of the barrage.
I worked in the area for many years. I have walked from Grangetown to Victoria wharf. Such a slum of industrial buildings would never have been allowed in any other part of the city. Many people have come from elsewhere and they are playing on the fears of the people of Cardiff. I remember the two great floods and the terror and squalor that they caused. We must avoid a recurrence, and the issue of groundwater must be properly investigated. However. I understand that attempts—not made on a basis of fact—have been made to arouse people's fears. It is a shame that emotions should have been aroused so unnecessarily.
We have heard a great deal about birds and about the great environmental offence that is about to be committed. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said that for the first time a national body is to destroy an entire site of special scientific interest. It is interesting to consider just how many SSSIs there are. They already

number more than 5,000, and the figure is rapidly approaching 7,000. There will be a time when 10 per cent. of the whole land area of the country will be designated as special.
We are talking here about the estuary of the Taff and the Rhymney—not about the estuaries of the Mawdduch Towry, or Tawe, or about various magnificent other estuaries in Wales. One could argue a case for preserving them.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Does my hon. Friend agree that when an SSSI is designated, great care must be exercised not to make that action counter-productive? In my constituency, there is an SSSI at Broughton, which has been designated so that the tide can come in and erode the cliff face. It is taking away a farmer's land so that a glacial till is exposed and the public can view it. One must remember that a farmer's livelihood is just as important as the facility to view a glacial till.

Mr. Flynn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention.
How many SSSIs have been destroyed or threatened in the past few years? I can tell the House that the figure is nearly 300, so such occurrances are not unusual. The areas in question were not significantly special.
There has been a great deal of debate about the various species of birds on the barrage site. They include dunlins and redshanks. Is it not amazing that, since the time of the archaeopter, and through millions of years of evolution, birds have managed to survive in myriads of species, shapes and colours—all without the help of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Birds?
It is now being claimed that every possible bird habitat must be protected in aspic and left unchanged. The fact is that great changes are occurring anyway. Ports and industrial areas are closing and are being recolonised by birds. A particular feature of an estuary is that it is always changing. Cardiff bay has already changed enormously because dredging has stopped there. The area alters every year because of the growth of the salt marsh.
Birds are very robust. I remember one area being changed for the benefit of farmers, who seemed to reign supreme in these matters, in Gwent. A huge area at Collister pill was drained and the habitat of many thousands of birds was destroyed. They could no longer breed because the wetland had disappeared. Without the help of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the species concerned migrated to a wholly artificial, manmade ash pond a few miles away and happily multiplied in numbers. They found new feeding grounds on an area outside the Usk estuary.

Mr. Morley: Does my hon. Friend accept that the habitat of which he speaks is very different from that of Cardiff bay and that there is no comparison between the two? Does he acknowledge that there is a scientific case that in North and South America, as well as in Europe, many species of birds and animals are on the decline? As my hon. Friend rightly says, habitat changes are occurring, but unfortunately they are for the worse, not the better. To take out Cardiff bay would place even more stress on the habitat and hasten the decline of many species that has already begun.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend gives a clue to the true purpose behind the RSPB campaign. It is interested not in


Cardiff or the bay but in the estuaries around our coast, and it is using Cardiff bay as an example. It knows that the population of dunlin and redshank is not unique. There are probably millions of dunlins in the world; there is no threat to them. If there is precious birdlife, one has to go to Bridgewater bay to find it.
The RSPB is campaigning and putting Cardiff's prosperity at risk because it wants to fight the line at Cardiff. It knows that if it can win its case in a bay as ugly as Cardiff's, it can fight and win in the Mawddach estuary, the Towy estuary and other beautiful estuaries.

Mr. Rogers: I am listening to my hon. Friend with amazement. Speeches have been made about the development of the bay and its usefulness to the people of Cardiff and the surrounding area. My hon. Friend's outlandish attack on people who are genuinely concerned about conservation does the argument no good. He should consider the far more serious issues rather than making this silly attack.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend will have an opportunity to make his own speech.
One of the fauna that exists in great numbers on the marl and foreshore of Cardiff bay is the rat. If one wants to see a living waterfront, one should go to certain areas—I shall not name them now—at high tide, when rats come over the sea walls. They are welcomed by the children of the area who trepan them with hammers. The rat is not regarded as an attractive animal, and because we do not have pictures of it painted by Peter Scott on our dining room walls it has no sentimental appeal. The environmental movement here is based on animals that are attractive.
When the presentation of the barrage was made, many conservationists and others came to Cardiff to fight the test case. The national press and its photographers were invited. I feel sympathy for Mr. Neil Libbert, a gifted photographer whose work I have followed for many years. His challenge was to present Cardiff bay as an attractive place. He had to turn down the F stop on his camera to fade into the shadows, and soft focus the squalor that surrounds it to present an attractive picture.
Cardiff bay is the least beautiful part of the city. Of course details must be discussed at length, but hon. Members should not be misled by the extravagance of the arguments of people who live many miles from Cardiff. There is a need to beautify the bay, and I hope that at this stage hon. Members will discuss the Bill, then sort out its detail in Committee and make a decision on Third Reading.

Mr. Ron Davies: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) will read his speech carefully when it appears in Hansard tomorrow. I know that he has a sense of humour and that occasionally he likes to be deliberately provocative, sometimes with the objective of catching the odd headline. He referred quite specifically to me in his speech. I think that his remarks were very silly, offensive and unfounded. I am sure that he did not intend any personal affront, but I hope that on reflection, having read his speech carefully, he will want to withdraw some of his wilder statements.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West is the only hon. Member who has spoken in favour of the Bill, apart from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who moved the Second Reading.
Two tasks face those who promote or support the Bill. The first is to justify the construction of the barrage. No hon. Member so far has made any attempt to justify its construction. The second is to justify the destruction of a site of special scientific interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West poured scorn on the whole ideal of conservation, and he will regret that tomorrow. He mocked those of us who are concerned about our natural heritage. This proposal will entirely destroy an SSSI. I am prepared to accept that, where an overriding national interest is involved, those of us who normally rate conservation issues most highly would have to recognise that conservation came second. If there is an overwhelming national case to justify the destruction of an SSSI, it has not been made this evening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth talked only in the broadest terms about the redevelopment of Cardiff. I will tell him and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West until I am blue in the face that we entirely support the redevelopment of Cardiff dockland, but we question the wisdom of constructing a barrage and the idea that it will somehow facilitate or accelerate the reconstruction of our dockland. The House of Lords examined that in minute detail and it is abundantly clear to those who have read their reports that that case has been stripped away. There is no economic case.

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: I shall make my speech. My hon. Friend will find another opportunity.
What happened in the House of Lords is a matter of record—

Mr. Michael: On that point?

Mr. Davies: I would prefer not to give way to my hon. Friend. He made his speech and I have many points to make. If he seeks to intervene merely to reinterpret what has already been said, I must tell him that I am not in the business of saying that my interpretation is better than his or that my experts are better than his. That is a matter of opinion. If he seeks merely to challenge me on matters of opinion, it would be better if I could make my speech in my own way.

Mr. Michael: The House of Lords Committee was convinced on evidence that the economic case was sound and investment prospects good. It accepted the need for the barrage. If there is alternative evidence, the details should be brought before the Select Committee and argued there. If, in stating a different view from mine, my hon. Friend is sincere in his belief, as I am sure he is, it is appropriate not to oppose the Second Reading, but to allow the Bill to pass to a Select Committee where the difference of view can be properly explored in great detail.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is wrong on all counts. I am opposing the Bill as a matter of principle because I believe that the construction of the barrage is wrong. It is no good my hon. Friend saying that we should refer the Bill to a Select Committee. I am opposed to the


construction of the barrage. I hope that he understands that. I referred to the evidence presented to the House of Lords Committee, not to the conclusion drawn by four or five geriatrics after considering the evidence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make disparaging references to Members of the other place.

Mr. Davies: I was wrong to make that remark and if I caused any offence, I withdraw it wholly and without reservation. That shows the danger of giving way.
My hon. Friend is wrong on many counts. The evidence presented to the House of Lords Committee stripped away the arguments for the barrage. If their Lordships in their wisdom decided not to accept that evidence, it is not a matter for me. I read the evidence that way presented and I hope that my hon. Friend understands that. Some time ago we debated a carry-over motion, and it was abundantly clear during that debate that there were four principal objections to the Bill: the conservation case, the argument about water quality, the question of the groundwater level and the water table, and the economic case—which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) supported in a powerful speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that the case for the barrage has been strengthened since that debate. However, my understanding is that what has happened in Cardiff since we had that debate does not strengthen the case.
The weekend after we debated the carry-over motion, a river in my constituency was subject to the grossest pollution. Given the geography of the valleys, and the juxtaposition of industry, commerce and the waterways, it is an undisputable fact that there will inevitably be flooding and there will be occasions when pollutants and toxins get into the water.
At present the Rhymney river flows out to the Severn, but if similar pollution occurs in the Taff or the Ely when we have a barrage, what will be the consequences? Instead of the natural system, whereby the toxins are flushed out to sea and can be diluted and broken up by sunlight and seawater, they will be pounded up behind the barrage.
We have been told that the National Rivers Authority will have a mysterious way to ensure the maintenance of water quality. It will have a big oxygenating plant, and it is going to turn the whole of the lagoon—1·8 hectares—into a bubble bath. It will pump oxygen through to burn off all the nutrients.
People who live in the valleys know about the everyday consequences of pollution, and that is one of the reasons that we have fears about the arguments on water quality.
In the summer, the South Wales Echo was one of the most fervent allies and advocates of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. It ran a campaign, calling Cardiff the dirtiest city in the United Kingdom. The city council and South Glamorgan county council could not keep the streets clean. Yet now they tell us that they will use new technology and all the marvellous modern methods that have never been tried before, to maintain water quality in 1.8 hectares of man-made lake. That stretches my incredulity, if not that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth.
We were told in the previous debate that the experts had been called in. Hydrogeologists and geologists have looked at the groundwater conditions in Cardiff and they say,

"Don't worry. There is nothing to worry about. The thousands of homes that are potentially jeopardised will be okay, the groundwater will not rise, it will not cause flooding, and if it does there will be compensation."
On 12 December I came across an article in the South Wales Echo referring to the Celtic Bay hotel. It is the hotel to which hon. Members were invited for a free weekend so that they could see the marvels of Cardiff bay. Many of us did not attend. It should be noted that the advisers of the development corporation would have been the experts who advised the hotel. The article reported:
Cardiff's new Docklands Celtic Bay Hotel was flooded last night for the third time.
An urgent meeting with the architects and builders was called after carpets were ruined in the basement bar and Health Suite. The flooding of the hotel, opened in July, has followed high tides and heavy rain causing the water-table to rise.
If heavy rain and high tides make the water table rise, what will pounding all the rivers and creating an artificial lake do?
The article continued:
South Glamorgan Fire Service were called to the £3 million hotel today and used suction machines to clear the basement. General Manager Mr. Essex said, 'We are becoming masters at coping with it.'
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth has to explain to thousands of people in Cardiff how they will have the resources of the county council and the South Glamorgan fire service to hand all the time and whether they will become masters at dealing with flooding.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Davies: I shall not give way.

Mr. Michael: That is irresponsible and misleading.

Mr. Davies: I wish to make another point on winch my hon. Friend may like to comment.
The economic argument has been the subject of debate in south Wales. It has been proved that pumping public money into the bay development is a way to put a premium on private investment and that it will be ripped off by the private sector. We know the role being played by the erstwhile Nicholas Edwards, now Lord Crickhowell, as director of Associated British Ports in 160 acres of prime development land. Cardiff city council has played sweetheart with the development corporation and the Secretary of State.
The South Wales Echo reported on 16 December:
City hit by £40 million cut in budget. All council schemes in Cardiff—from house repairs to leisure projects—are threatened by a massive Government spending cut which will almost certainly mean loss of jobs.
It is the end of the capital building programme in Cardiff. If there is a case to be made for the regeneration of Cardiff—and there is—it must be based on decent homes for the people who already live there. It must be based on investment in manufacturing industry, in infrastructure, in hospitals and in leisure centres and recreation facilities. That is the type of investment that is needed. Instead, Cardiff bay gets money and the city council gets a £40 million cut in budget.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth may be tempted to say, as might others who live in Cardiff, that these are internal matters and that hon. Members from outside the area should not involve themselves in it. My response is that the promoters decided to come to the House to ask parliamentary permission.


They put the Bill in our court. Secondly, I must state in the strongest possible terms that all of us have a right to comment on a projected development which threatens our natural heritage. That natural heritage does not belong to Cardiff city council, or to Glamorgan, or to Cardiff bay or to my hon. Friends from Cardiff. It is part of our national natural heritage, and we all have a responsibility to ensure that it is safeguarded.
The overwhelming objection to the development must be that raised on conservation grounds. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West who I am glad to see has returned to the Chamber, suggested that only people from outside and the RSPB are objecting. The local groups who are objecting on only conservation grounds include the Severn Estuary Conservation Group, the Glamorgan Wildlife Trust, the Cardiff Naturalists' Society and the Cardiff branch of Friends of the Earth.
The national bodies which oppose the plan are the RSPB, which has more than 600,000 members, the Royal Society for Nature Conservation and, most critically of all, the Government's own nature conservation advisers, the Nature Conservancy Council. They are the prime objectors to the Bill and have petition No. 1 against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth may have dismissed the local bodies, and he may want to dismiss the RSPB, but he should not dismiss the NCC. I do not think that he would want to do that.
I can do no better than quote what the RSPB has written, although I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) will develop this line of argument. I want to stress in the strongest possible terms the importance of the combined estuary of the Rivers Taff and Ely of between 5,000 and 8,000 waders and wildfowl. It is the most important estuary within the greater Severn estuary. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West should remain for a while.
Ian Prestt, the director general, of the RSPB said:
Cardiff bay is one of Wales' most prestigious natural assets holding 5–8,000 birds each winter including dunlin, redshank, shelduck, teal and knot. Many of these birds travel thousands of miles from as far away as Iceland, Greenland and Siberia to winter on Cardiff's ice-free bay. The birds depend on this bay for their survival. We have an international responsibility to protect it.
When my hon. Friend makes his throwaway remarks about people from outside daring to criticise or people from as far away as Iceland making comments about our responsibility for nature conservation, he should understand that we all have responsibility for migratory birds. We cannot draw artificial natural boundaries around them and say, "Cardiff has this responsibility," or, "Wales has that responsibility," or, "Britain has that responsibility."
We all have a common responsibility because these winter residents are the summer breeding population in the rest of—

Mr. Flynn: rose—

Mr. Davies: Let me finish my sentence and then I shall give way.
These birds are our responsibility during the winter when they are our residents and they are the responsibility of the north Atlantic breeding areas during the summer.
I shall give a final quote from the RSPB and then I shall give way to my hon. Friend who, I think, referred to the

president of the RSPB, Magnus Magnusson, when he talked about Iceland. Commenting on the "Living Waterfront" scheme, the RSPB's president said:
Acceptance of the Development Corporation's proposals would be a major tragedy for South Cardiff. The alternative `Living Waterfront' scheme will enhance the living and working conditions of the local people while maintaining the wildlife interest. Unlike the barrage it will not cause problems such as poor water quality, insect nuisance, flooding and the destruction of a nationally important site for birds.
I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West and if my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is so agitated I shall then give way to him, but after that I want to continue my speech and come to a fairly early conclusion.

Mr. Flynn: I apologise for leaving the Chamber but, as my hon. Friend knows, I have a deep interest in the terrible events in Romania being revealed by the hour. That was why I was absent from the Chamber.
There has been a serious environmental analysis of what is likely to happen when the barrage is built. Is my hon. Friend aware that there are still huge areas of changing mudflats that will remain outside the barrage, on which the birds can grow, multiply and on which they now nest? They will be able to use the vast hundreds of square miles that exist in the estuary. How much land outside the barrage is being used by the dunlins and redshanks?

Mr. Davies: By definition, birds that overwinter in this country do not nest here in the summer. When my hon. Friend considers the nature of his question, he will find its answer in his own remarks.

Mr. Michael: I accept that this is a matter about which my hon. Friend feels passionately, which is why he has such a concentrated approach to it. His passion carries him a little too far. It is a little surprising that the RSPB discovered the tremendous importance of this area of Cardiff bay only when a development was suggested. It did not give it such importance in its previous publications. My hon. Friend undermines his case by overstating it.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend should try a bit of charm.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend suggests that I should try a bit of charm, but given the company that surrounds me, my natural charm is pressed.
The RSPB has not suddenly found Cardiff bay. It was the subject of designation as a site of special scientific interest in 1979. Nobody objected to that then.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Nobody knew.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend sometimes lets his tongue get him into trouble. He said that nobody knew.
In 1979 South Glamorgan included Cardiff bay in its structure plan as a site for nature conservation, so the conservation case is well established. No one argued against development prior to Nick Edwards's brainchild in 1986 because until then he had not had his brainchild. It was not until 1986 that anyone suggested that Cardiff bay should be developed.
My hon. Friend for Newport, West grossly exaggerated his views when he tried to dismiss the idea of designations of sites of special scientific interest. He tried to suggest that because there were 5,000 such sites one did not really matter. He should look carefully at those 5,000 sites, although not individually. Some 1,000 of them are sites of


scientific geological interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) made a telling point about that and there was a great deal of merit in his case.
The other sites are designated not by whim, not because someone simply says, "This is a nice site, let's designate it." They are based on strict, objective, scientific criteria. Those SSSIs that are estuarine and therefore have particular importance for migrating birds number only 48. My hon. Friend cannot say that there are 5,000 when there are only 48.
I resist the development of SSSIs to the extent that they would be destroyed, for the first time, by Government action. It sets a precedent. My hon. Friend was right to say that we are resisting it because it is the first one. I must ask him—and it is a rhetorical question; I do not want an answer and I will not give way to him—if we do not resist the first one, when do we start to resist? Will it be an arbitrary figure? Will it be the fifth, the 10th or the 48th? Will we destroy them all? If so, what is the point of designating SSSIs?
We have a moral obligation, which I believe to be overriding, although I understand that others may think differently. It is my view that our natural heritage has been handed down from those who went before, and it is our responsibility to conserve for those who come after. I freely admit that that is my own, perhaps idiosyncratic, view. Others may take a different view. However, even if they reject the moral argument, they cannot reject the constitutional argument. They cannot reject our statutory responsibilities to protect our SSSIs.
We have international obligations. The SSSI in Cardiff bay is part of the Severn estuary, which is a candidate for designation under our commitment to Ramsar—the treaty under which we have international obligations. We are internationally obliged under article 3 of the treaty to ensure the wise use of our wetlands. Article 4 states:
Each contracting party shall promote the conservation of wetlands and waterfowl by establishing nature reserves on wetlands whether they are included in the list or not.
We are free and willing signatories to that treaty. I defy anyone to say how the construction of the barrage across the mouths of the Taff and Ely rivers and the creation of this midge-ridden polluted lake, destroying an SSSI, is a wise use of our wetlands.
The EEC directive on the conservation of wild birds requires the protection of species and especially of migratory birds. It makes it clear that, in the case of irreconcilable conflict, the legal obligation of member states is to give priority to ecological needs. Article 2 of the treaty does not say that there shall be a balance but that priority shall be given to ecological needs. For that reason, if the Bill reaches the statute book, that will not be the end of the matter. We will find ourselves before the European Court of Justice charged with a breach of article 2.

Mr. Flynn: rose—

Mr. Davies: I sat patiently while my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West made his case and I did not attempt to intervene. He has been absent—for reasons that I appreciate—for a large part of my speech. I trust that he appreciates that I, too, am entitled to make my speech without interruption.
I believe that the Bill flouts our legal obligations to conservation, that it defies logic in the matter of groundwater and the question of water quality and that the promoters of the measure are making a gross error of

judgment in believing that the barrage will be a positive factor in the redevelopment of Cardiff docklands. I hope that the Bill will fail tonight and that, if it does not, it will fail during its passage through Parliament.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): I thought it might be helpful, after that extremely deeply felt speech by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) if I gave the House a brief summary of the Government's attitude to the Bill. The Government have a substantial interest in the objectives of the Bill, as the intention is that the cost of building the barrage will be met by the development corporation with the assistance of grant in aid provided by the Welsh Office, which commissioned the initial studies into the proposal.
The Government believe that the key to the redevelopment of the Cardiff bay area is the construction of a barrage across the harbour mouth. The range of quality developments which will arise from this will benefit not just Cardiff and the people who live and work in the bay area, but also the economy of south Wales generally. The image and perception of Wales worldwide will also be transformed.
The Government carefully considered the wide-ranging and detailed studies of the economic, technical and environmental issues involved. We accept that the environmental considerations must be weighed against the great economic, recreational and other benefits expected to arise from a barrage, and concur with the view that the economic case for the barrage is very strong, a view shared by the Committee in the other place.
Indeed, it is the intention, once the barrage is in place, for the development corporation to carry out as part of the development the highest-quality environmental improvements and to create, with conservation groups, a superb freshwater, wildlife and natural habitat within the bay area.
The Government have already made plain their commitment to providing grant in aid to enable the barrage to be built if Parliament agrees the legislation. As a further demonstration of our commitment to this proposal, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales announced on 11 December that he was making £31·5 million available to the Cardiff Bay development corporation next year, and that, over the next three years, Government funding would total £100 million, bringing the total amount given, or announced, to date to some £150 million. Beyond that, we will ensure that sufficient funding will be made available to enable the corporation to carry through its task.

Mr. Rowlands: At last we are receiving an official statement about the public expenditure consequences of the Bill. The Minister spoke of the Government's commitment of £150 million and went on to speak about further amendments. We should not permit this stage of the measure to pass until we have teased out of him his estimate of the total of public and Welsh Office expenditure, and from which vote it will come.

Mr. Grist: I do not think that that is entirely germane to the proposal for a barrage, but capital costs of some £84·78 million are shown in the financial memorandum accompanying the Bill, and those are the costs for which parliamentary approval is being sought. There are, of


course, additional costs for sewerage diversion, environmental matters and so forth, which bring the amount to £113 million. The total cost to the development corporation is estimated—as the hon. Gentleman said in his last speech—to be some £402 million. He will appreciate that the multiple of private investment expected to follow that makes the operation very feasible.

Mr. Rowlands: We have now agreed that the total cost will be some £402 million. What proportion of that will be paid out of Welsh Office funds, and under which vote?

Mr. Grist: There will be transport grant funding for the Bute link; the rest will come out of the general Welsh Office block Vote, which is in the hands of the Secretary of State. [Interruption.] It is Welsh Office money. The hon. Gentleman has read the evidence given to the Committee in the other place.
That is why I believe that the House should agree to refer the Bill to a Standing Committee.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I am grateful to the Minister, and apologise for twice interrupting him. At last we have been given some indication of the enormous public expenditure consequences of the Bill. When we last debated it, we tried to tease the information out of the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). I was mildly disappointed that, in opening today's debate, my hon. Friend made no reference to the public expenditure consequences. It took some time for us to extract from the Minister the information that the amount involved will be over £400 million.

Mr. Michael: Perhaps I can help; I was seeking to help the Minister on the same point. I referred to the public expenditure implications, but I must point out tht the £402 million mentioned by the Minister includes some £219 million which would be required without the barrage—the primary distributor road, for instance. We should be specific about which developments are barrage-related, and we would need the PDR irrespective of the barrage.

Mr. Rowlands: I am grateful to my hon. Friend: further teasing is producing more estimates and qualifications. It is about time. My hon. Friend mentioned none of this in his opening speech; he did not come clean with the House or with his colleagues. Even if that £200-odd million is deducted, however, we are still left with a £200 million public-expenditure Welsh Office grant for the scheme. As has already been said, the matter is no longer one of local concern; it has profound public expenditure implications for the Principality as a whole.
Let me prompt my hon. Friend to interrupt my spech again, in the hope of teasing out further information. In our last debate on the Bill, I mentioned operational losses of £652,000. How will that amount be paid?

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for posing his questions. I assure him that it is not a case of "teasing out"; the figures are in the public domain, and I am quoting from documents that my hon. Friend has read and from which he too has quoted.
The operational cost of the barrage and the inland bay are estimated at £1·1 million annually in the November 1988 figures, with expected revenues growing over time to a total of £0·475 million, leaving a deficit of £0·642 million. That is a little over half a million pounds. It is only fair to put it in perspective. The maintenance of Cardiff's parks—an expense that we do not begrudge—costs about £3 million annually. So the cost of the project is not as excessive as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Rowlands: That is extremely interesting. The scheme is supposed to have enormous benefits and tremendous consequences for the development of the city. All that private money is to pour into it, yet the public—through the Welsh Office and the ratepayers or poll tax payers of South Glamorgan county council—will pick up the losses. That is the only conclusion I can draw.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend makes an extremely cogent point. It seems that losses will be £500,000 in the first year. Does my hon. Friend have any idea where that money will come from? Will it come from the Welsh Office or will it he raised through the poll tax?

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Rowlands: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, who is seeking to intervene yet again, is about to tell us.

Mr. Michael: I am seeking to help my hon. Friend with answers to these questions. The maintenance of parks in Cardiff—which we properly consider to be an important matter of public expenditure—is of the order of £3 million. We are talking about a little more than £500,000 for the maintenance of the lake and the inland water area. I suggest to my hon. Friend that we use the term "subsidy" when we do not approve of something, but we say "expenditure on maintenance" when we do.

Mr. Rowlands: We are simply trying to discover the facts. Again my hon. Friend has not answered the question. I understand that the barrage will be owned by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Will the corporation pay the operating cost or will it he paid by the community charge payers of South Glamorgan?

Mr. Michael: Initially, the corporation will fund the running costs. After its dissolution, it is intended to create a fund from assets to enable the successor body to pay for operating costs. Again, I refer only to what is public knowledge and is in the documents to which my hon. Friend has referred. One cannot deal with every detail. These matters have been open and available to my hon. Friend. There is nothing new in what I am saying today.

Mr. Rowlands: It is not a matter of detail, but one of considerable public consequence and concern. We now know that the Welsh Office will underwrite the capital expenditure. We all know about the concept of competing for resources. Ministers constantly tell us that the Welsh Office does not have a bottomless purse. Therefore, that money is coming from the same purse that could be paying the Welsh Development Agency to clear derelict land in Merthyr Tydfil or Rhymney or to finance other developments in other parts of the Principality. Therefore, we are rightly entitled to challenge the use of those public resources, as they come from one central budget that we share and for which we compete with Cardiff and other communities.

Mr Grist: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the development corporation will be raising money through sales of capital assets and land and will be arranging part of the financing.

Mr. Rowlands: That is fascinating. Does it mean that the Cardiff Bay development corporation is likely to pay back any part of the £400 million to come out of Welsh Office funds? I invite the Minister to reply to that perfectly reasonable question.
Let me ask the Minister again. He just got up and said that the Cardiff Bay development corporation will be able to raise money because it will sell houses and assets and develop its land. Does that mean that, if there is a nice large surplus, it will come back to the Welsh Office and pay off the £400 million initial investment? Are we talking about a pump-priming exercise which will be repaid to the Welsh Office, or can it be described as a £400 million grant for what is basically a private development?
Will the Minister answer the question? As he has not risen from his seat, we must make the simple assumption that the £400 million is all grant and that if the CBDC


earns lots of money as a consequence of the scheme, the money will not come back to the Welsh Office. That is the simple lesson to draw from our series of exchanges.
Having indentified an important issue, I must explain that I intend to vote against the Bill, because it is a matter of priorities. I do not share the priorities of some hon. Members, and I believe that other communities have an equal, if not greater, right to challenge the levels of expenditure, which make the valleys initiative of the Secretary of State look like meagre rations.
I want to underline a point that I made last time I spoke on the Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth did not respond tonight. I refer to a previous experience, when I had the privilege to serve Cardiff, North. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), in a forceful speech, underlined the point about consultants. Consultants have a vested interest in grandiose schemes. The nature of their thinking—and sometimes of their fees—is based on the sum total of the scheme that they propose. There is an inherent tendency for consultants to produce grandiose schemes.
Cardiff has several times suffered from such proposals. It suffered when Ravenseft and Land Securities came along to build a huge addition to the centre of Cardiff, combined with the destruction of houses with the building of a hook road. Everybody in the city talked about the jobs that would flow from that and how Cardiff would become a great metropolitan centre if only we built that enormous shopping development and the hook road to feed it. I am grateful that, as a result of a switch in public opinion and the strength of resistance to those proposals—

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rowlands: No, because I have given way fairly to my hon. Friend.
I am grateful that those grandiose schemes were swept away. Cardiff is such a beautiful city now because it has grown organically. It has grown out of the existing centre and by rejecting the grandiose schemes.

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rowlands: No, because I have responded to my hon. Friend in a series of exchanges and I want to make a couple of brief points.
The city grew out of organic development from the existing centre. Much of what is now being proposed has the approach of those grandiose schemes of 20 years ago. To turn our backs on such schemes and to create a sensible, civilised development out of the existing dockland area would be a better choice than the scheme that is proposed in the Bill.
I want to answer the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth made about the "rippling" effect. He does not realise how much the concept that our development is a rippling effect from a marina in Cardiff, spreading to Merthyr Tydfil, to Rhymney and to Tredegar, is now resented in the heads of the valleys communities.
We reject that idea on two grounds. First, we do not believe that it would happen.

Mr. Flynn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Rowlands: I want to make my point. I sat and listened patiently and I did not interrupt any hon. Member, so I intend to make my final comments in my own way.
The major rippling effect was a result of the enormous development of coal and iron from the valleys, which built Cardiff and created the great docklands and ports from which coal, iron and timber were exported. That was the original rippling effect, which came from the valleys. We do not believe that the development that my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli so eloquently described will ripple up in the same way to create jobs and investment for the people of Merthyr Tydfil or the heads of the valleys.
We not only do not believe in such a development, but we do not want it. We have spent the past 15 to 20 years fighting for a countervailing economic centre. We do not want a rippling effect from Cardiff up; we want to build an alternative economic development around the heads of the valleys. As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli said, we want that to be based on the real contribution that it can make to the industrial regeneration not only of our own communities but of the Principality and of Britain. That will not be achieved by giving enormous sums of public money to build a marina in south Cardiff.
This is not the first occasion on which we have fought against a grandiose scheme such as this. We opposed the whole idea of an equally grandiose scheme at Llantrisant. The whole project was based on the so-called rippling effect. We were told that, if only that new town was built at the bottom of the valleys, our problems would be solved; we should only have to travel as far as Llantrisant. Now we are told that we must travel to south Cardiff for our jobs and investment. We do not want to be told that.
We rejected the principle when we rejected the Llantrisant new town scheme. We should reject the principle when it is advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth in support of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. We do not want a rippling effect from a lagoon or pool in south Cardiff; we want to develop our own alternative economy, and we need a large amount of public expenditure to do that. I believe that we are competing for the same resources as the Bill, so naturally I oppose it.

Mr. Allan Rogers: I am completely in favour of the scheme to develop the Cardiff docklands, but, like many of my hon. Friends, I oppose the development of a barrage, because there is only one reason why such a development is required. One tragedy of this debate is that Welsh Members on different sides of the argument are becoming more and more polarised, with the argument getting more bad-tempered as we proceed.

Mr. Rowlands: No.

Mr. Rogers: Yes, we have had some very bad-tempered speeches, and it is no good running away from the fact. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) was not bad-tempered at all, but other speakers have been very bad-tempered. I see no reason for that. I deeply regret the way in which the debate has developed.
Let us consider the history of the project. I see that the Minister is smiling. It is a pity that he could not have


smiled a little more during his speech and given us a few figures instead of trying to defraud the people of Wales of the money by putting it into the new outfit set up by his previous boss, Lord Crickhowell. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) said in the letter that he sent out on 7 November:
At this stage my plea is a simple one: Here we have Labour initiative".
He was eliciting the support of Labour Members, of course. But that was not true.

Mr. Michael: It was.

Mr. Rogers: No. The barrage was the brainchild of Nicholas Edwards, the former Tory Secretary of State.

Mr. Michael: It was not.

Mr. Rogers: It was the Tory Secretary of State who proposed it.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is misrepresenting the position.

Mr. Rogers: I shall certainly not attack my hon. Friend or add to the bad-temperedness of the debate.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is trying hard.

Mr. Rogers: No. I am more concerned about Conservative Members and what they are about, because they want different things from us. In answer to Paul Foot, Lord Crickhowell, who is now chairman of the National Rivers Authority [AN HON. MEMBER: "Smiling in the Gallery."] I cannot refer to people in the Gallery.
Lord Crickhowell said:
There is hardly a conflict of interest. The position is that, on my instruction, anyone at the National Rivers Authority giving advice on Cardiff Bay must not refer to me.
I am sure that the noble Lord would not want to waste his time in the Gallery listening to our speeches. Who would want to waste his time here this evening? We are told that he is not interested in the barrage, that he does not care about it and that he wants to stand away from it because, of course, he must not have an interest. In fact, he has interests, but not as a public guardian of the cleanliness of rivers or of the pollution of the environment. His interest is as a director of Associated British Ports, which owns 160 acres in the Cardiff bay area.
However, he is not the only one who has a financial interest in the development of the scheme—

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Rogers: I was certainly not referring to my hon. Friend, but I give way to him.

Mr. Michael: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the consideration that guided Labour county councillors and city councillors in favouring the scheme and, in the case of the county councillors, in promoting the Bill was based on long deliberations and their sincere belief that it will benefit the area and the environment and enhance the job opportunities of the children and grandchildren of the area.

Mr. Rogers: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The motives of most of the Labour county, district and city councillors could not be questioned in any way. But when the scheme was initially put forward, Nicholas Edwards, the then Secretary of State for Wales, now Lord Crickhowell, did not give the city or county councils any

options. He said, "Either have the urban development corporation or have nothing." Naturally, having been blackmailed, the county and city councils accepted the situation. They acted, as many of us have as county and district councillors over the years when we participated in decisions, because they genuinely thought that they would bring a benefit. I am sure that the development of Cardiff bay will be of great benefit to the people who live in the area.
But over and above all that, there is something rather smelly about this. There has been a lot of talk about pollution, but there is something rotten about this business. There is something incestuous about it—too many people are involved. Apart from Lord Crickhowell, someone else has been extremely interested in our debate tonight. The chairman of the urban development corporation was the slight unsuccessful Tory candidate for the constituency of Ebbw Vale in 1979. There is a saying in Wales—coined by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan)—"Lose a deposit and gain a quango." All that anyone has to do in Wales is to lose a seat and he or she can then become chairman of a quango or some other body. The same principle was exercised by the former Secretary of State for Wales, when the motto was "Leave a seat, gain a quango and several directorships on the way." An enormous number of conflicts of interest are involved.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth will convey to his friends who spoke on the conservation issue, such as the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), who has now left the Chamber, that I am sorry that this debate has been used to attack conservation principles and the principle behind the designation of sites of special scientific interest. At least the Minister said that his Department had balanced the environmental hazards against the economic benefits and had concluded that the economic benefits were more important. That is a good, honest statement and it is a pity that we have not heard more honest statements tonight—

Mr. Michael: Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

Mr. Rogers: Yes, in a minute when I have finished this point about conservation.
Many people outside the Chamber will consider what has been said tonight and will wonder what the Labour party's attitude is towards green issues. The performance on this was scandalous. I have told the hon. Members concerned that I would refer to them. It was scandalous that the principles of SSSIs should be attacked. They were established after a great deal of discussion and investigation, and after a great deal of opposition from many sources. It would be a tragedy if SSSIs were to disappear. We are nibbling at the margins of our special wildlife areas. God knows, south Wales has had enough pollution.

Mr. Michael: I said that it was right that the Select Committee should consider SSSIs in the light of the other factors involved. The natural environment is one of my passionate concerns and I respect the motivation behind the opposition. But the wrong target has been selected. I am not rubbishing the environmental considerations: I am simply saying that their application in this case is wrong.

Mr. Rogers: My hon. Friend must not take this too personally. I was not referring to him. If he mentioned the matter it was not in an objectionable way, attacking the principle of conservation or the establishment of SSSIs, and I do not include him in my comments.
But this is the nub of the problem. Someone came up with the scheme and ever since it was mooted all that we have done is to try to shoehorn all the facts to fit the scheme. What my hon. Friend does not understand is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said, we are concerned with a point of principle. We would support a scheme for the development of Cardiff bay if there was no barrage. An alternative has been suggested—the one for the living waterfront. The estuaries and the mouths of some of the fastest flowing rivers in the United Kingdom do not need to be dammed up. We have seen from the plans and the maps that very little land accrues from the construction of the barrage compared with constructing a containment around the present dock area and getting rid of the mess, to which my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West and for Cardiff, South and Penarth referred.
I do not see why we cannot all be on the same side. There is no reason why the barrage has to be built. I am sorry, there is one reason—the profit, greed and selfishness of people who will not live there and who have no real link with the industrial development of south Wales but who are simply interested in making a substantial profit from the people of Cardiff and the other people of south Wales. That is where the real interest lies in this matter.
Even the literature sent to us today by my noble Friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa says that the scheme will only create a lake. It may be a good lake or a bad lake—I do not want to go into that argument—but it need not be there. Factories will not be built in the middle of the lagoon or the bay. There need be no conflict at all. A simple containment on the east side of the estuary would give all the land that is required for the regeneration of the area. It would not have one of the 16 problems that have been identified by the opponents. Why does the Cardiff Bay development corporation have to be so entrenched in its attitude that it is not prepared to accept that? Even if the scheme is considered by a Select Committee, the removal of the barrage will still not be proposed because its purpose is to provide a place for people to park their boats.
My constituents may criticise me. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a majority of almost 31,000, and at the last election 35,000 people voted for me. I am sorry to say that that majority will probably go rapidly downhill at the next general election, because my constituents will complain, "Look here, Rogers. You stopped me from mooring my boat at Cardiff." They will turn away from me and I shall lose all their support.

Mr. Morgan: Does my hon. Friend realise that it is not part of Government policy to give yachts to the working-class people of the Welsh valleys, knowing that they would only keep coal in them?

Mr. Rogers: That just goes to show that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West is out of touch. We used to keep coal in our yachts, but today there is no coal left to keep.
From the wonderful pictorial representation of the area included in the map circulated today by my noble Friend Lord Brooks of Tremorfa, the deputy chairman of the

urban development corporation, it is obvious that the living waterfront proposals would provide sufficient development. There would be no problem constructing a link road across the scheme. The Minister could indulge himself and spend all the money that he never seems to have available for other purposes, by building a link road across the existing swamp or another one.
I shall vote against the scheme because I am not convinced that it is needed. If the urban development corporation is prepared to amend the scheme by removing the barrage, leaving sufficient land and other resources to regenerate the southern part of Cardiff, and to provide even the 30,000 jobs that have been mooted, the proposal would have my complete support, and not one of my right hon. and hon. Friends would vote against it.
I hope that my plea will reach the ears of the urban development corporation and of Associated British Ports, and that they will reconsider the matter and return with an amended scheme. I would not oppose any money being spent in south Wales. God knows, it needs money and jobs to counterbalance the tremendous decline in industry suffered under the present Government. The Government have ravaged south Wales and the mining communities, and there has been no investment. If the Government are prepared to put money into the proposal, I am prepared to support it—but only if they get rid of that damned barrage.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Representing Carmarthen, I have none of the first-hand knowledge that has been evident in many of the excellent speeches made this evening. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said, if the proposals mean that public money will come to Wales, I can guarantee that my constituency, and many others in Wales, could do with that money just as much as Cardiff.
As I support the Severn barrage, where does that place me in respect of the Cardiff barrage? I was surprised by many of the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), but my support for the Severn barrage is purely on energy grounds. Although it may create an environmental disaster for bird life, that must be set against the terrific energy that could be produced.
About 7 per cent. of the United Kingdom's energy could be produced by a Severn barrage for 100 years or more. There would be no greenhouse effect, no acid rain, and no nuclear waste. I advocate a barrage for the Severn for energy reasons, and I for one would be prepared to pay the environmental cost. The Cardiff bay barrage is a matter of economic development versus the environment.
I admit that I am not an expert on Cardiff bay, but like the Towy estuary it has mudflats, which are important to migrating birds. I am strongly influenced when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds takes a line on development. In the summer of 1988, I watched a video on 500,000 dunlin dinners and was impressed by its content. I was not aware that Britain's estaries are home to 40 per cent. of the wading birds that traverse Europe; the estuaries are very important to those birds. They come from Scandinavia, Siberia, Canada and Greenland. When we consider the environmental impact of the barrage, we


must do so not as Cardiffians or Welsh people but as Europeans, and we must be interested in its global implications.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), when I visited Cardiff bay I did not stay at the Celtic Bay hotel for fear of being flooded by the rise of groundwater that he mentioned. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) think that the environment of Cardiff bay is fit for wading birds? The malodour of the Dettol being poured into it to protect wading birds from its filth was such that I wondered whether a major improvement in its environment was necessary, with or without the barrage.

Mr. Williams: Other hon. Members have fully answered that point, and the same occured to me when I was listening fully to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West. There is filth in many of our towns and cities and terrific pollution in many of our rivers. The answer is not to drown the filth and wildlife but to clean our rivers and to treat sewage. Two wrongs will never make a right.
Biologically, the mudflats in Cardiff bay are extremely productive—more productive than the most productive agricultural land. The food that they produce is extremely important to migrating birds.
I am concerned about the possibility of severe pollution if the barrage is built. The sewage that flows down the Taff and the Ely is rich in nitrates and phosphates. That is bound to cause problems, especially in the summer, because the high concentration of nitrates and phosphates in the trapped water in the bay will cause eutrophication. It is then a question of how severe that eutrophication will he. I believe that in the summer, rather than fresh water eutrophicated water will be trapped, it will stink of grey-green algae and its texture will be more like pea soup.
The main environmental concern must be that we are destroying a site of special scientific interest that is important to migrating birds.

Mr. Flynn: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Recently I tabled questions about eutrophy. Does he agree that the algae problems and what we are seeing in the North sea are so worrying that we must tackle them, not just in the Taff and the Ely, but in all the rivers that run into the Severn, which has been described accurately as the greatest flush toilet in Europe? If it was not for the scouring action of the second highest tide in the world, it would be a stinking mess now. Is that not a different problem? If the barrage comes to Cardiff, we must tackle the problems of our rivers.

Mr. Williams: That is not a different problem. The barrage would exacerbate the problem rather than contribute in any way to solving it. It would increase the problem and hold it within Cardiff bay.
The only argument in favour of the barrage is the economic development argument that this public money will stimulate private investment and create jobs and high-cost housing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) completely demolished the economic case. I do not know what the figures are, but if £100 million is to be spent in Wales, I want the whole of Wales to share in the benefits. It is a case of priorities. Two weeks ago we debated tolls for the Severn bridge. Why not use that

money to get rid of those tolls rather than spend it on Cardiff? That would benefit the whole of the Welsh economy. Then there is the M4. There are problems in Newport and on the stretch from Baglan to Neath.
My constituency needs a link road from the M4 to Ammanford and the upper Ammanford valley. There are no end of road infrastructure improvements which would help to bring jobs into all our areas.
I am impressed by the arguments of hon. Members representing the Rhondda, Neath and Rhymney valley constituencies. They are poor areas. Earlier this year I was privileged to be involved in the Pontypridd by-election. In those weeks I travelled and got to know Pontypridd, as I did not know any of those valley communities previously. There is terrific impoverishment. Those communities need public investment. Surely the money should go to these other areas of Wales.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli spoke about the neglect and destruction of manufacturing industry during 10 years of Conservative rule. Manufacturing should be our priority, particularly considering our massive balance of payments deficit. We should direct public money into manufacturing. That would attract private investment. The Cardiff bay barrage rates nowhere in the list of priorities for economic development; nor are there environmental arguments in its favour.

Mr. Win Griffiths: At the outset I must say that I find the private Bill procedure objectionable for gigantic projects which would normally be the subject of a detailed legal planning inquiry. That is a reason why the promotion of the barrage scheme is unsatisfactory and unhelpful in conducting the argument about the issues at stake for the citizens of Cardiff and south Wales.
Moreover, by using the private Bill procedure, the barrage scheme does not have to come under the direct legal scrutiny of the European Community's environmental impact assessment directive. Although environmental impact assessment studies have been made, the Commission cannot intervene in any way to assess the value of the barrage to the economy of Cardiff and south Wales, as against the possible environmental damage.
I am opposed to the way in which the scheme has been brought forward, on the ground that one should allow full public participation in the construction and development of the barrage scheme, and on the ground that it does not come under the legally enforceable directives on environmental impact assessment.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Surely my hon. Friend is not saying that every environmental development or consideration in Britain should always come under the scrutiny of the European Commission. He seems to be making the assumption that the European Commission needs to intervene in all our deliberations. One only has to consider what it has done in the case of two dangerous mutagens and carcinogens—carbadox and olaquindox— to realise that its interventions are often far from helpful to Britain, and that they can be extremely unhelpful.

Mr. Griffiths: I do not dispute that example. However, none of us is perfect all the time. I should have thought


that my hon. Friend would agree that that applies to the present British Government—they are capable of making mistakes.
There is a European Community directive that requires major schemes—not every little factory scheme that is being developed—that are perceived to have a major impact on the environment to be examined specifically to assess that impact and, because of the private Bill procedure, that directive has no force.

Mr. Flynn: My hon. Friend has referred to the document. A report has been made by independent people. He may be excused for not having seen it, because there is no copy in the House of Commons Library, but there is a copy in the House of Lords Library. I commend that report to him because it is a splendid study, and it was not made by anyone with an axe to grind. Few schemes of such a magnitude have been presented with such a thorough independent assessment of their environmental impact.

Mr. Griffiths: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a study made by the university of Liverpool. I am aware of it and I knew that that environmental impact assessment was going to be made as a result of questions I put to the European Commission about whether it could intervene, and because of letters I wrote to the Secretary of State for Wales a number of years ago.
The directive has no legal force behind it to make an environmental impact assessment, and that is why I am against the use of the private Bill procedure; it does not depend on any legal force, but on whether any attention is paid to the assessment.
There is also the question of the amount of money that will need to be spent simply because the barrage is to be built. Several hon. Members have referred to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the additional costs, over and above the money that will go to develop the Cardiff docklands. He mentioned some £200 million in additional expenditure, and because of the existence of the lagoon, there would also be a need to spend £500,000 a year on its maintenance.
One must ask whether that is financially sustainable in the long term for the city of Cardiff. It is all very well for the Minister to refer to the ability of the corporation to sell land and other assets to help pay for development and the maintenance costs, but there will come a time when assets cannot be sold to pay for running the dockland area.

Mr. Rogers: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was present when the Minister gave that information. After Associated British Ports has made extensive profits, the running costs of the scheme will be met by the Welsh Office. The Minister said that, after the initial capital grants of about £400 million, there will be sufficient funding for the scheme. The Welsh Office will run the scheme and the profits will be taken by the corporation and Associated British Ports.

Mr. Grist: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: I am happy to give way to the Minister.

Mr. Grist: I must correct that impression. There is more than £400 million of expenditure, but £150 million of that

will come from asset sales. The sum from the Welsh Office is about £250 million, of which £150 million has already been announced.

Mr. Griffiths: The one thing that we know is that, wherever the money comes from—some of it is coming from the Welsh Office—it is a major investment, but is it strictly necessary for the docklands to be developed? Can the docklands be developed without the barrage that is currently proposed? I think that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the answer is yes. As some of the money does not have to be spent, therefore, could it not be put to much better use cleaning up the Taff and Ely rivers, for example, just to mention the two that are directly affected by the scheme?

Mr. Michael: Without the barrage, we were previously talking about £219 million of expenditure, so the balance of the £402 million is directly barrage-related. Does my hon. Friend agree that the appraisal has to describe the benefits, the jobs that will be brought in and the costs? Such detail is open to scrutiny by the Committee.

Mr. Griffiths: That is true, but we are taking an unnecessary step if we go for the barrage scheme. I believe that we can get virtually the same results and have more balanced development across south Wales if some of the money is used for other projects which could be just as useful for the economy and the environment. We should not spend it all on the barrage, against which there are so many question marks. That is why I shall not support the Bill being sent to a Committee. I would have much preferred the matter to be dealt with by public planning inquiry procedures in Cardiff.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am glad to speak after the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths). We have had a well-balanced debate so far. It has even been relatively good-tempered. I calculate that, including interventions, seven hon. Members have spoken in favour of, and seven against, the Bill. I shall add to the majority by speaking in favour of it.
I do not understand or accept the do-nothing approach of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who talked about resenting and rejecting a ripple effect out of Cardiff. I far prefer the tone of a letter from Councillor Bill Herbert, of which I think all Welsh Members have a copy. He was last year's Labour Lord Mayor of Cardiff. He comes from the valleys and, like many of us in Cardiff, has a considerable affinity for them. He anticipated the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney. He rejected the idea of a ripple and talked of a river of development and opportunities flowing from the south Cardiff redevelopment.
I far prefer the real enthusiasm displayed by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). It was a contagious enthusiasm as he described his experiences of living in Cardiff and his view of the south Cardiff redevelopment. I know that the hon. Gentleman has strong connections with Cardiff. His brother, Michael Flynn, is a Labour councillor in my constituency, and I am glad to have him there. He is certainly as hard-working and diligent a member and servant of the Labour party as the hon. Member for Newport, West. I appreciated the enthusiasm of the hon. Gentleman.
I share that enthusiasm for the regeneration of south Cardiff. It is necessary. Cardiff is an attractive city with many fine features—old ones such as the castle and civic centre and newer ones such as St. David's centre which, despite what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney said, did not come about by organic development, but through the planning process. It moved on from the Ravenseft development to which he referred.
The regeneration of south Cardiff will create 6,000 new homes, 25 per cent. of which will be important low-cost housing. It will create 5,000 to 6,000 sq ft of industrial business units and 3,000 to 4,000 sq ft of office space. Estimates have ranged as high as 30,000 jobs from the redevelopment of south Cardiff. Those jobs will not be confined merely to Cardiff or south Cardiff, but will be taken up widely through south Wales.
In my constituency on the northern edge of Cardiff I have the obvious example of Amersham International and A.B. Electronics. Between them, since 1983, those two firms have created more jobs than the total unemployment in my constituency. According to that narrow theory, a naive person might imagine that unemployment in my constituency has been eliminated. That has not happened; many people travel to work in Cardiff—to those two firms in my constituency—and will certainly travel to the new jobs created in south Cardiff.
The regeneration will provide a dramatic expansion to the economy of south Wales. It will increase the region's importance. As a capital city of Wales—

Mr. Rogers: rose—

Mr. Jones: The evening is late, I must not hold up the debate too much and so should not give way.
I often see Cardiff as rivalling the city of Bristol across the Severn. I see us rapidly overtaking Bristol in importance. We will soon outstrip that provincial town in England, and Cardiff and south Wales generally will, properly, rank alongside Birmingham.
This necessary regeneration of south Cardiff will improve our environment. It will change the present rundown docks, which are only a shade of the past. It will rejuvenate the variety of assorted and not too attractive buildings, and the other traces of industrial dereliction—which all too often include waste, litter and debris being dumped on the waterside.

Mr. Rogers: I support all that the hon. Gentleman asks for—I do not want to make his speech for him. Will he comment on my proposition about achieving the same purposes without the barrage—just a consolidation of the area which, I accept, is desperately run down?

Mr. Jones: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I intend to come to that point in a minute or two.
The regeneration of south Cardiff will eliminate those mudflats which are best seen at low tide. I defy anyone to describe those mudflats as attractive or beautiful. At low tide we see, essentially, the results of industralisation and digging out Cardiff docks. That involved the extensive reclamation of our coastline, which has totally changed since the docks were dug out.
The present mudflats are the result of accretion since the digging out of Cardiff docks. I understand from experts that this is demonstrated by the presence of spartina grass, which is found growing only on high level, stable mud. Cardiff bay is natural, but the present mud is

not. It is ugly and its appearance can be improved upon. The environment of not just Cardiff but the valleys could be improved.
The economic benefits will not be confined to Cardiff. The barrage will be a catalyst for improving the Taff and the Ely rivers that flow through the valleys. One advantage of water privatisation was the splitting of the functions of poacher and gamekeeper. There is now a proper gamekeeper in the form of the National Rivers Authority.
What will happen with the barrage and the south Cardiff development will be a great challenge for the N RA —probably its biggest challenge for the foreseeable future. Can it rise to the occasion? I am confident that it can. The barrage and the south Cardiff development will be the catalyst for an improvement that will flow up the rivers through the valleys. The people will demand for their valleys what they see happening in south Cardiff.
I am in considerable sympathy with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I remember being almost a lone voice calling out that the case for the birds and the environment was too important to go unheard. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) was the only other Member who, in the 1985–86 Session, shouted "Object" when the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill came before the House.

Mr. Ron Davies: I am reluctant to intervene, as I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman wants to make his speech. However, for the sake of accuracy it should be put on the record that I objected to the County of South Glamorgan (Taff Crossing) Bill. It was only when the hon. Gentleman said that he was prepared to continue to block the Bill that I withdrew to allow him, as a local Member, to voice his objections.

Mr. Jones: I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman's remarks, which certainly do not fit in with my recollection. However, I do not want to quarrel with him, because I know that he has strong sympathy with my point.
I welcome the RSPB's constructive contribution. I was grateful to receive a letter from its parliamentary officer this week which provided most useful information. Early in the letter, he said that the RSPB is not against the redevelopment of the city. The word "not" was underlined. Instead, the RSPB is proposing a living waterfront scheme. The proposal is well-intentioned, but I am not sure that it is as well worked out as the scheme before us. I understand that its proposal would involve the loss of slightly more than 15 per cent. of the SSSI and would increase accretion in the remainder of the bay, which would in turn enlarge the amount of salt marsh, which would have the effect of reducing the feeding grounds. I also understand that there is a problem with the water supply, which might be much more expensive for the living waterfront scheme than has been imagined. That would lead to further problems with water quality for the scheme.
A survey, not of the living waterfront scheme, but which might be close enough for our purposes at this stage, was carried out by Peat Marwick McLintock. It tried to estimate the most likely effects on Cardiff of a barrage, of a mini-barrage, or of not having a barrage at all. The mini-barrage is not dissimilar to what is now proposed as a living waterfront. Peat Marwick McLintock estimated that the mini-barrage would create just under 15,000 jobs, but that the full barrage would create more than 22,000 jobs. Private investment for the mini-barrage would


generate only £607 million, while £1,051 million of private investment would come from the full barrage. Most importantly, the mini-barrage would require a leverage of private to public investment of only 4·8:1 and the full barrage would require 8·9:1. The net worth of the development would be more than £77 million from the full barrage, but there would be a loss of £61 million from the mini-barrage. That substantially makes the case for the barrage. It makes it superior to the mini-barrage and probably also to the living waterfront scheme proposed by the RSPB.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that studies throughout the world show that such large-scale investment in a capital city gives rise to the danger that the periphery becomes relatively poorer because of the rapid expansion that follows elsewhere? What does he think the Government would do to invest money in the valley communities—over and above what is in the valleys initiative—to ensure that they develop and there is no huge gap between the standard of living in Cardiff and that in the valley communities?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman asks a pertinent question in arguing what appears to be a highly academic case. I suggest that the peripheral areas would be relatively better off.
I am more than willing, in my regard for the RSPB, to countenance the society fully arguing its case before the Committee that will examine the Bill. Indeed, I regard that as another important reason why the measure should receive its Second Reading tonight. The RSPB is right to point out that the suggested artificial feeding area is only theoretical. There is a real risk to the bird population. There are uncertainties about the artificial feeding alternative and about the birds relocating in other estuaries.
We welcome the commitment of the promoters to develop alternatives, but I still call for all efforts to be made to achieve the greatest success of the alternatives. In turn, I want the RSPB's fullest involvement. The artifcial feeding ground is an innovation and an opportunity, and the RSPB should be involved in managing it. It would have the greatest chance of getting it right and of developing the potential use of the concept elsewhere.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made a wide assumption about the cost and funding of the south Cardiff redevelopment. I expect that the total cost of £402 million will, in large part, be met by land sales and other receipts, and certainly not solely from grant aid. In addition, we shall have the leverage of much larger commercial investments. It may not mean a return to the Welsh Office of money expended, but it will mean much less than £402 million having to leave the Welsh Office.
I note that the best argument against the Bill came from a supporter, "The Insider" columnist in The Cardiff Independent, who wrote:
If CBDC really believe there will be so little damage within their arbitrary lines and none outside, they have nothing to lose by offering full compensation for all damage, wherever it occurs, because if they are right—and there is no excuse if they are not—there will be little or no damage, and so they will have to pay little or no compensation. It is simple —but unanswerable.
But it is answered. Clause 12 of the Bill provides full protection. There is a protected property area based on a

six-metre ground water contour. That should be well beyond the furthest extent of any affected property. But that does not limit it. Anywhere outside the protected property area is covered. In other words, anywhere in the United Kingdom is covered. A claim anywhere can be made against the CBDC and if, by independent survey, loss can be shown, there will be full reimbursement. We have the fullest protection and the fullest potential. I am more than happy to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the House aware that there is terrible news tonight? The massacre in Romania is continuing, with at least 2,000 men, women and children having been cut down by the secret service police. Can you use your good offices, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ensure that by tomorrow, the House will have an opportunity to express its outrage at, and to use our great influence on, President Ceausescu, who has driven his country to a state where it can no longer be regarded as a civilised country?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is a serious matter, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. Doubtless what has been said will have been heard by the occupants of the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Elliot Morely: I recognise that I am an outsider, but for that very reason I want to talk about the national significance of the scheme, and its national impact.
I appreciate very much the role played by local Members of Parliament, and feel that the people of Cardiff are very fortunate in being represented by my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Those two excellent and hard-working Members have put the cases for and against the barrage with sincerity and diligence, and they deserve every credit for so doing.
I have my views on architecture, design and even popular planning, but I do not wish to speak about them: those are issues properly to be decided by local people, who will have to live with the designs. I want to discuss the way in which the importance of Cardiff bay fits into the national scale of things, and also to answer some specific points—particularly those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) about the effect of the barrage on the bird population.
Cardiff hay is important in its own right. It is a site of special scientific interest, and its destruction will create a precedent. I would not claim that that is why it has attracted attention, but that is not to say that the area is not valuable in itself. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has defined it as the most important small estuary around the shores of the greater Severn estuary, and there is no doubt that the Severn estuary is a site of international ecological importance.
The Severn, including the Taff area, has been identified as a wetland of international importance, and is a candidate for listing under the Ramsar convention on the conservation of wetlands of international importance. It also qualifies as a special protection area under article 4 of EC directive 79/409, on the conservation of wild birds.

Mr. Rogers: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Most of us have been here for well over three hours. Now other hon. Members have come into the Chamber, and are


standing at the Bar of the House making a ridiculous noise. Can you bring them to order, or else throw them out?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the hon. Members who have just come into the Chamber will be prepard to allow the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to make his speech in the same manner as earlier speakers.

Mr. Morley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
It could be argued that the RSPB has a vested interest, and is therefore keen to stress the area's importance. Let me refer hon. Members to a report given to the Committee in the other place by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Government's own body, which is given the duty of presenting impartial scientific advice on which the Government may make their decisions. In the council's view,
it has become very clear before this Committee that its importance"—
the importance of Cardiff bay, that is—
bears no relation … to the size ratio between it and the estuary.
The point was put to Dr. Parker on day four:
'So though we were told in opening, I think, that the whole of the Severn Estuary site is some 37,000 acres and Cardiff Bay itself is only 400 acres, the importance of Cardiff Bay, the Taff-Ely estuary, is far greater than those proportionate figures would perhaps suggest?'
'Yes', he said, 'there cannot be any argument on that point"'.
It has been mentioned that the estuary was artificially created. In the 18th century it was far larger, and would have supported a greater diversity of species than it does today, owing to the artificial changes in the construction of the docks. Nor is it true that its importance is due to the enrichment of the mud from nutrients flowing through sewage in the rivers. According to the NCC, that enrichment
is not a matter which is dependent totally on the sewage coining down the rivers, it is matters mixed in from the sea including sewage and other nutrient algae and matters found in the natural marine waters.
The bay is therefore not dependent on pollution.
The crux of the issue is that the development of Cardiff bay should concentrate on clearing up the waterside and getting rid of pollution and dereliction, rather than spending money on the barrage scheme.
There is no evidence that the barrage scheme will necessarily attract inward investment. There is a great deal of evidence that if the area is covered by water, because it is a sheltered feeding area and the mudbanks are higher than the Severn estuary, it would remove an important feeding area for the species on the Severn estuary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West referred to increased density. Scientific research has shown that if Cardiff bay is closed off, the density of birds on the Severn estuary will be increased by 70 per cent. in the case of dunlin, the main species that would be affected—

Mr. Michael: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 15.

Division No. 28]
[12.20 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Amess, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Anderson, Donald





Arbuthnot, James
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Irvine, Michael


Atkinson, David
Jack, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Janman, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Kilfedder, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Boswell, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Boyes, Roland
Lawrence, Ivan


Brazier, Julian
Lightbown, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Lord, Michael


Browne, John (Winchester)
Maclean, David


Burns, Simon
McLoughlin, Patrick


Burt, Alistair
McWilliam, John


Butler, Chris
Mans, Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Mates, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Meale, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chope, Christopher
Michael, Alun


Coleman, Donald
Monro, Sir Hector


Conway, Derek
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Murphy, Paul


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Neubert, Michael


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Dixon, Don
Paice, James


Dorrell, Stephen
Patnick, Irvine


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dover, Den
Redwood, John


Dunn, Bob
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Durant, Tony
Sackville, Hon Tom


Fallon, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Flynn, Paul
Stevens, Lewis


Forman, Nigel
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Foster, Derek
Summerson, Hugo


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gale, Roger
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Glyn, Dr Alan
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Goodlad, Alastair
Thorne, Neil


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Thurnham, Peter


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Tredinnick, David


Grist, Ian
Waller, Gary


Hague, William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Wheeler, John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Harris, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Wood, Timothy


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)



Howells, Geraint
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Mr. Gwilym Jones and


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Mr. John McFall.


NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Rogers, Allan


Beggs, Roy
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Rowlands, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Short, Clare


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)



Morgan, Rhodri
Tellers for the Noes:


Morley, Elliot
Mr. Alan W. Williams and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Win Griffiths.


Pike, Peter L.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 105, Noes 16.

Division No. 29]
[at 12.31 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Arbuthnot, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)


Amess, David
Atkinson, David


Anderson, Donald
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony






Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Jack, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Janman, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Boyes, Roland
Kilfedder, James


Brazier, Julian
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Burns, Simon
Lawrence, Ivan


Burt, Alistair
Lightbown, David


Butler, Chris
Lord, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Maclean, David


Chapman, Sydney
McWilliam, John


Chope, Christopher
Mates, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Meale, Alan


Conway, Derek
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Michael, Alun


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mills, Iain


Cran, James
Monro, Sir Hector


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Murphy, Paul


Dixon, Don
Neubert, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Paice, James


Dover, Den
Patnick, Irvine


Dunn, Bob
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Redwood, John


Durant, Tony
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Fallon, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Flynn, Paul
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Forman, Nigel
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Foster, Derek
Stevens, Lewis


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Gale, Roger
Summerson, Hugo


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Glyn, Dr Alan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Golding, Mrs Llin
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Thorne, Neil


Grist, Ian
Thurnham, Peter


Hague, William
Tredinnick, David


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Waller, Gary


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Harris, David
Wheeler, John


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Widdecombe, Ann


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Wiggin, Jerry


Howells, Geraint
Wood, Timothy


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)



Hughes, Roy (Newport B)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Mr. John McFall and


Irvine, Michael
Mr. Gwilym Jones.


NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Pike, Peter L.


Beggs, Roy
Rogers, Allan


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Rowlands, Ted


Cryer, Bob
Short, Clare


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Skinner, Dennis


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)



Morgan, Rhodri
Tellers for the Noes:


Morley, Elliot
Mr. Win Griffiths and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Alan W. Williams.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed.

AGRICULTURE

Ordered,
That Mr. Elliot Morley be discharged from the Agriculture Committee, and Mr. Keith Bradley be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ENERGY

Ordered,
That Mr. Michael Brown be discharged from the Energy Committee, and Mr. Michael Stern be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

ENVIRONMENT

Ordered,
That Mr. Paul Boateng be discharged from the Environment Committee, and Mr. George Howarth be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

HOME AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That Mr. Tony Worthington be discharged from the Home Affairs Committee, and Mr. Alan Meale be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

TREASURY AND CIVIL SERVICE

Ordered,
That Dr. Lewis Moonie be discharged from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, and Mr. John Garrett be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Ray Powell, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

PETITION

Broadcasting (Deaf People)

Mr. James Kilfedder: It is a pleasure and a privilege to present a petition to the House signed by 2,047 persons in respect of the deficiency of the television service provided for the deaf.
This is part of a national appeal on behalf of deaf people who number about 4 million in the United Kingdom and who believe that they are deprived of full and equal access to television because there is not adequate subtitling and sign language.
The petition prays that television channel operators should have a duty to make their programmes more accessible to the deaf by a fixed date. I wholeheartedly agree with that petition and with that plea.

To lie upon the Table.

Homelessness (Strathclyde)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown]

Mr. John McFall: It is my pleasure to have an Adjournment debate on homelessness in the Strathclyde region and it is ironic that, as we approach the end of the final decade of the 20th century, the problem of homelessness in many of our towns and cities is reaching Dickensian proportions. The Government's onslaught on public housing over the past 10 years has resulted in a staggering 41 per cent. increase in homelessness in Scotland, and the pace is accelerating.
Homelessness has increased by 76 per cent. over the past six years. Bald statistics alone cannot convey the despair and anguish caused to many thousands of people through the lack of one of life's basic necessities—a home. Today, 192,000 people in Scotland do not have a home, and the policies being pursued by the Government show no prospect of improvement. Indeed, it is hard to detect any real concern by the Government for the plight of the homeless.
The statistics reveal only the extent of official homelessness as documented by those who apply to local authorities for help. The voluntary housing and caring agencies emphasise time and again that the true level of homelessness in Scotland is much higher when the "hidden homeless" are taken into account.
As a consequence of the Government's deliberate policy of under-investment in public sector housing, there has been a steady reduction in the number of decent homes available for rent from local authorities. An analysis of Government expenditure over the past 10 years clearly shows that housing has been wilfully neglected, while expenditure on law and order and on protective services increased during the same period by 59 per cent. Spending on industry, energy, trade and employment rose by 51 per cent., but that on housing decreased by 41 per cent.
If public authorities had been able to invest through the 1980s at the same levels evident in 1978, district councils would have spent an additional £821 million. The Scottish Special Housing Association—now Scottish Homes—would have an extra £289 million, and the new towns £384 million. A total of £1,494 million could have been spent on modernising and rebuilding Scottish housing.
One could easily gain an impression from an analysis of Government policies that, far from working to eradicate homelessness, they are conspiring to increase it. Fewer public sector houses are being built now than in any peacetime year since the 1920s.
It cannot be argued that the private sector has stepped in and soaked up the demand for housing. In 1976, a total of 16,304 private house starts were made in Scotland, but by 1985 that figure had fallen to 14,500. If the Government's present policies are maintained, that situation is unlikely to improve in the 1990s.
Only this month, the Under-Secretary announced a £90 million reduction in Scottish local authorities' capital housing allocation for the coming year. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities anticipated council housing investment increasing from £474 million to at least £512 million, to allow for the present high rate of inflation. In COSLA's words,

the Minister has set an allocation of £421 million and attempts to defend such a reduction, which is £90 million in real terms, as a good deal for local government … the announcement is a terrible blow to housing authorities and their tenants.
COSLA is surely correct in its analysis.
The Government's high interest rates have put house purchase beyond the means of many thousands of our fellow citizens, and repossessions in Scotland rose by 1,000 per cent. over the past 10 years, placing ever-increasing pressure on dwindling resources of local authorities' dwindling resources.
What is there in the Government's housing policy that will provide a solution to the distressing and ever-growing problem of homelessness? Certainly that cannot be done by Scottish Homes. It was not established to deal with waiting lists and homelessness. The housing associations that Scottish Homes services can at best hope to add another 4,000 units per year to their housing stock, although current funding allows for considerably less. Even if we take an optimistic view, by the end of the century housing associations will still control only 4 per cent. of Scotland's housing, and they will make only a marginal impact on homelessness. No doubt the aggressive sales policy of the SSHA will be continued by Scottish Homes, which will further aggravate the position.
The Government's encouragement of the private rented sector is largely a matter of tenure changes, and the simple fact is that changing landlords does not increase the supply of houses. Homelessness is accelerating at a frightening rate, and on its own the cost of temporary accommodation has increased by 500 per cent. in the past four years. Nothing that the Government are doing or intend to do is likely to reverse that process.
A number of statistics show the negative impact that the Government's housing policies have had in Strathclyde region and Scotland. Between 1982 and 1986, the number of people on local authority waiting lists increased by 34 per cent., and each year 30,000 people become homeless. In my constituency, homelessness has increased by 279 per cent. in the past six years. One of the saddest aspects is that that has meant increased competition for housing between unfortunate groups of people. Local authority officers have been faced with Solomon-like judgments, and it is clear that in Strathclyde, as elsewhere in Scotland, the single homeless have lost out. In my constituency, the number of single homeless has increased over the past 10 years by 900 per cent. Within that group, the percentage of young single homeless has grown even more rapidly—by 1,000 per cent. in Dumbarton district in the past 10 years.
The Government have tried to evade their responsibility for the young single homeless by pretending that there is no problem and that leaving home is a matter of young people exercising choice. That is a flawed analysis. A national survey by the centre for educational sociology in Edinburgh showed that it is fallacious to regard youth as a universal category of people who have identical needs, who undergo similar experiences and who all have families who are willing and able to support them. It is a highly differentiated group, and it is people from higher social classes, with good qualifications, who are most likely to leave home at an early age. For them, it is usually a straightforward transition to adult life. But for others it will not be a matter of choice. They may have been thrown out or asked to leave following a breakdown in their


relationship with their parents, or they may be victims of physical or sexual abuse and have no alternative but to leave.
Research has shown that one third of the single homeless come from a care background and do not have stable family relationships to fall back on. The situation for many of those young people is perilous. If they cannot find the security in their own community which a home would provide, they will be forced to drift through society seeking shelter and comfort where they can and will be prey to every kind of exploitation.
The Government have recognised the special dangers facing young people and have built the concept of vulnerability into the codes of guidance accompanying the homelessness legislation. Although vulnerability is not defined in the legislation, there is recognition that the category should include the physical and mentally handicapped and young people who are exposed to sexual or financial exploitation. Any civilised society should provide that safety net for its vulnerable young people. I must tell the Minister that it has been rent asunder by the pressures put on local authority housing over the past 10 years. The need to update and make suitable positive changes to the code of practice is urgent.
A few months ago, the National Children's Home published the results of a major survey of housing authorities throughout Britain and 85 per cent. of local authorities in the United Kingdom participated in it. Its results make depressing reading indeed. Although the attention of housing authorities is drawn to young people in danger of sexual and financial exploitation, only two fifths of the responding housing authorities said that they would recognise a girl under 18 who comes into this category as vulnerable. Only one fifth of respondents said that they would regard a young homeless care leaver as qualifying under the conditions set out in the codes of guidance. Although it is hard to imagine, only one in eight authorities said that they would deem as vulnerable a young homeless person with no parents and no support. A similar percentage said that they would regard as vulnerable a young homeless person under a probation or after-care order and only one fifth would regard as vulnerable a young person with serious family or relationship problems. If young people in such appalling circumstances cannot qualify for housing under the vulnerability provisions, in what circumstances can they apply?
Does the Minister recognise that specific requirements to extend the code of conduct so that all young people recognised as being in priority need due to vulnerability when homeless should be considered? It is essential that any extension of the powers of codes of guidance is matched by an increased financial commitment to Scottish local authorities.
It is not the vulnerability of these young people that is in question. It is simply the fact that there are no longer resources available to meet this manifest need. Housing officers are being forced to act pragmatically, even if it means disregarding the law. After all, the law cannot provide the houses. That is the Government's job. Housing officers have been asked to make impossible

decisions between competing claims from equally desperate groups, and the young single homeless are the ones to lose out most heavily.
There are also clear differences in policy between authorities operating in various parts of the country. A young care leaver's chances of being accorded priority need status on the basis of vulnerability in Scotland is comparatively favourable, with an applicant having a one in three chance. In some parts of the United Kingdom the chance of such applicants is one in eight. The variation in what should be a national consensus should worry the Government, and it calls for action by them. The determining factors seem likely to include the relative size of the authority's housing stock, but are also likely to reflect political and social attitudes of members.
Ten years ago most young single people with housing needs had a reasonable range of accommodation options. Today the picture is very different and the need for a dependable safety net for the most vulnerable of our young people has never been greater. The present legislation simply does not work and the Government must tighten the relevant provisions to ensure that vulnerable young single homeless people who apply to the local housing authority under the homelessness legislation receive an objective assessment of their needs rather than a pragmatic assessment based on an analysis of competing pressures for housing, which is what is happening at present.
The present effective discretion of housing authorities must be translated into a legal duty to assess young single homeless people's cases objectively. In addition, it must be recognised that the only effective way to deal with the social scourge that homelessness represents is to invest more money in public housing. In the short term, the acute nature of the problem of homelessness in Strathclyde and, indeed, in Scotland demands that extra funds be made available.
The Government have already conceded that point in relation to homelessness in London, the south-east and Wales. Scotland needs a parallel financial package of at least £30 million to deal with homelessness before it is further exported. It is already estimated by the caring agencies that 15 to 18 per cent. of the homeless in London and other major English cities are young Scots. Why have the Government been so complacent in failing to respond to this demand from local authorities and voluntary agencies, which are so well placed to assess housing needs? It is incomprehensible that no such decision has yet been made in respect of Scotland and I urge the Minister to make an announcement that additional funds will be made available forthwith.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) on securing this Adjournment debate and on setting out his position lucidly and expressing genuine concerns. In the time available, I shall respond to all the points which he raised.
Several exaggerated claims have been made about the level of homelessness in Scotland. First, on statistics, a number of exaggerated claims have been made. The facts of the matter are that the number of households that have applied to local authorities in Scotland, under the homelessness provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Act


1987, have, for the past three years, remained relatively stable at about 25,000 per year. Of that total, the local authorities have assessed about 9,500 as homeless and about 7,500 as potentially homeless. Again, the figures have shown little variation in recent years.
In Strathclyde, the number of applications over the past three years has remained at 13,000, of which the number assessed as homeless is about 4,500 and as potentially homeless, 2,500. In Dunbarton, the numbers of applications have risen from 927 in 1986–87 to 1,383 in 1988–89, but in 1988–89 some 461 were assessed as homeless and 244 as potentially homeless. In both cases, the figures are lower than in 1987–88, when 483 were assessed as homeless and 334 as potentially homeless, on the combined basis. That represents a 12·5 per cent. reduction in the numbers assessed as homeless, or potentially homeless.
I am aware that Shelter claims that the level of homelessness in Scotland is higher than that shown by the Scottish Office figures. Shelter has failed to make clear the basis on which its estimates are made. The Scottish Office figures are not based on a survey; they are compiled from returns made by local authorities I am satisfied that they are an accurate reflection of the position notified by authorities. I recognise, of course, that the statistics should be treated with caution, as they measure local authority activity in relation to homelessness, rather than homelessness itself. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the available figures do not indicate that homelessness is increasing.
I do not wish to dwell on the statistics, however. As the hon. Member will appreciate, we cannot consider the problem of homelessness solely in terms of numbers. To be without a home is a personal tragedy and at this time of year it is a tragedy thrown into sharp focus.
The Government are committed to maintaining an effective legislative framework for dealing with the homeless, and the hon. Member is right to concentrate on the code of guidance. As I made clear in my earlier remarks, it falls to local authorities to carry out the tasks of providing advice and assistance to the homeless and, in certain circumstances, of securing accommodation. Authorities are required to exercise these functions in accordance with the code of guidance which was issued in 1980 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) when he was Secretary of State.
The code of guidance sets out the way in which local authorities should exercise the homelessness functions placed upon them by statute. Among other things, the code explains the action which a local authority should take when a household applies to be considered as homeless. The code discusses the circumstances in which the local authority should secure accommodation for homeless persons. In addition, the code provides advice about how local authorities can prevent homelessness arising in the first place, and about co-operation between authorities and other agencies. The code of guidance, as the hon. Member said, requires updating to take account of new legislation since 1980, such as the matrimonial homes legislation, to reflect changes in such areas as social security and, most importantly, to respond to the greater concern which society now has for protection of children in danger and to the greater awareness of certain other social problems.

Mr. McFall: I thank the Minister for replying constructively. Will he consider the possibility of the code of practice being made statutory? I know that that is under consideration at the moment. I told the survey of the National Children's Home that local authorities are not obeying or being guided by the code of practice. Therefore, I think that a statutory element is important.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall obviously consider what the hon. Gentleman has said, but we do not have a housing Bill before the House this year.
With regard to the revision of the code of guidance, the Scottish Development Department has been consulting the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, as well as interested bodies in the voluntary sector, including Shelter, the Scottish Council for the Single Homeless and Scottish Women's Aid, with a view to the preparation of a revised code of guidance. A draft of the new code will be issued shortly. The revised code will not only take account of the consultations which have been held, it will also reflect the results of the research which the Department has been carrying out into local authority procedures in dealing with homelessness. One of the main aims of the revised code will be to ensure that local authorities operate more consistently and fairly when dealing with homelessness applications. When the code is revised, one area that will require attention is that concerning how young people are dealt with. The present code makes it clear that homeless young people who are at risk of sexual or financial exploitation should be treated as having a priority need for accommodation. The revised code should consider the possibility of strengthening and expanding our advice on that.
Research is also being carried out into local authority waiting lists, which the hon. Member will appreciate are an important indicator of housing needs. A more accurate assessment of housing need should benefit the homeless by ensuring that authorities' housing provision more closely meets housing need.
With regard to resources, I should mention that, from 1974–75 to 1979–80, there was a reduction in real terms of 8 per cent. in housing capital investment, whereas from 1979 to 1989–90, there has been an average real increase of 2 per cent. a year in capital investment. The hon. Member referred to the additional resources that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced for homelessness in England, and complained about the apparent absence of a similar package for Scotland.
The English proposals are mainly directed towards bringing empty houses into use, particularly in London and the south-east. There are proportionally fewer empty public sector houses in Scotland. In Scottish circumstances, rather than earmark a specific allocation for homelessness, it makes more sense for the problems of homelessness to be considered in the context of housing needs generally.
I can assure the hon. Member that we have been no less generous in terms of the provision of resources than was my right hon. Friend south of the border. On the first of this month, I announced that there would be a substantial increase of £64 million over last year in the 1990–91 provisional net allocations for housing revenue account capital expenditure. This is to help local authorities to meet housing needs in their areas, including those of the homeless. It is for local authorities to take account of homelessness and other problems when drawing up their capital programmes. When making the provisional capital


allocations to individual authorities, which I expect to announce shortly, I will of course take account of capital programmes and the needs, including homelessness, which they are designed to meet.
The hon. Gentleman asked about new houses. Some 195,203 homes have been built in Scotland since 1979. Of those, 138,894 were built by the private sector, 27,616 by local authorities, 13,638 by housing associations, 7,048 by new towns, 7,503 by the Scottish Special Housing Association or Scottish Homes and 504 by Government Departments. That is approaching 200,000 new homes, which should assist considerably to meet housing need.
The answer to homelessness, however, is not simply the provision of more houses. We must also make better use of the houses we already have. It has been estimated that there are about 130,000 empty houses in Scotland, many of which are in the private sector. I believe that the reform of the private rented sector brought about by the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 will increase landlords' willingness to make more property available for rent. The resulting increase in the supply of accommodation will help to alleviate homelessness, particularly for those sections of the population, such as single people, who have traditionally relied on the private rented sector.
I recognise, of course, that not all Scotland's empty houses are in good condition, but the availability of improvement grants will help to ensure that investment in the private rented sector will remain viable. Some £119 million is being made available for local authority assistance to the private sector in 1990–91.
On a small scale, the recent Shelter initiative on rural housing, to which the Government contributed £30,000 over three years, shows what can be done. With the help of housing improvement grants, the initiative brought into use some 150 private sector houses in rural areas for families on council waiting lists.
Nor should we neglect the contribution which can be made by the public sector. There are about 25,000 vacant council houses. This represents only about 3 per cent. of the total council house stock, and I accept that many of them are empty because they are awaiting repair or are being held to decant households during modernisation and improvement programmes, but at least 4,000 have been vacant for more than three months. In my meetings with local authorities—I have been to 33—I have taken every opportunity to encourage them to reduce levels of vacant stock. Bringing such houses back into use could directly assist the homeless. I urge local authorities to keep that in mind.
Empty houses in both the private and public sectors represent an unused resource. For various good reasons, it will never be possible for there to be no empty houses, but the Government have demonstrated their commitment to ensuring that this resource is brought back into use wherever possible.
However, the distribution of empty houses does not necessarily correspond to the distribution of homelessness. It was for this reason that a more imaginative approach to dealing with homelessness was signposted in the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988. Under that Act, local authorities are enabled, with the Secretary of State's consent, to adopt schemes whereby cash incentives may be paid to council

tenants to persuade them to move into the private sector, thus releasing housing for homeless families or others on council waiting lists. Experience elsewhere in Britain has shown that this can make a worthwhile and cost-effective contribution to dealing with homelessness.
It is important to remember that, for the cost of building one new house, such schemes will release four or five existing houses for the homeless; and, what is more, will do it more quickly. In recent months, I have taken every opportunity to encourage local authorities to adopt such schemes. I know that Scottish Homes is considering introducing a similar scheme soon for housing association tenants; I welcome such a positive development and I hope that local authorities will follow suit.
I have already mentioned our financial commitment to local authorities next year. I should also point out that we have increased the resources available to Scottish Homes. Discounting loan repayments, Scottish Homes will be able to plan for expenditure of £348 million in 1990–91, £36 million above the comparable figure for the current year. That will enable Scottish Homes to make real progress in expanding the housing association movement and investing in its own stock, both of which will be of particular benefit to the homeless.
I should perhaps remind the House that the housing association movement has been one of the greatest housing success stories of the 1980s. The Government have spent nearly £930 million in encouraging the housing associations, and this has resulted in 32,000 new or rehabilitated houses. I am particularly pleased that many of these houses are designed to meet the needs of the elderly or of the disabled; while these may not have been of direct benefit to the homeless, they have eased pressures in the housing market and have released other accommodation which can be used for the homeless. In response to the hon. Gentleman's point about the single homeless, I should say that more than 3,000 of these houses have been specifically designed for single people and have been instrumental in relieving homelessness in this sector of the population.
We must remember that homelessness is not merely a result of the lack of houses. As I have already made clear, Scotland has a surplus of houses. We now understand that homelessness is caused by a mix of social, economic and demographic factors. The Scottish Development Department's statistics reveal that 66 per cent. of homelessness cases last year arose either because of marital breakdown or because relatives or friends were no longer willing or able to accommodate those involved. Less than 10 per cent. of homeless cases arose from court orders, evictions or other actions by landlords.
Finally, I reiterate my assurance to the hon. Gentleman that the Government not only care about homelessness, but are taking active steps to deal with it. This is not a task which we can accomplish alone. All the housing agencies in Scotland have a part to play. I hope that I have explained tonight how the Government—working in partnership with local authorities, Scottish Homes, housing associations and the voluntary sector—approach the problem of homelessness.
The motion having been made after half-past Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
Adjourned at fourteen minutes past One o'clock.